ANSWERS
TOUGH QUESTIONS, REAL ANSWERS
NAVIGATION
We would highly recommend the following resources that we used to help develop this page: Live Action, Love Unleashes Life, The Case for Life, Abort73 and What's My Pro-Life Line?

"NOT HUMAN"

F O U N D A T I O N  # 1 :   W h a t   i s   t h e   u n b o r n ?
 "AN EMBRYO IS NOT ALIVE"
“I once dialogued with a university student who, when I asked what he thought about abortion, said he supported it. I asked a follow-up question and he declaratively said, ‘I have news for you—they’re not alive.’ So I asked another question: ‘Then why would a woman have an abortion?’”
-Stephanie Gray, 1
       The case to show that the embryo is alive is an easy case to make. This is a rare objection that has a simple response, dead things don't grow. The definition of abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy after conception. Why would you have to terminate something that is not going to grow or is not alive?
       Alan Shlemon 2 makes three points to show that the unborn is alive:
  1. No period of non-life that exists.
  2. The unborn is growing, therefore, it is living.
  3. The unborn meets the biological criteria for life. It grows, responds to stimuli and metabolizes nutrients and converts it to energy.
Scott  Klusendorf also pointed this out in his book, The Case for Life 3 “That the embryo is living seems obvious on the face of it, as dead things don’t grow. Scientists generally agree that anything that exhibits irritability (reaction to stimuli), metabolism (converting food to energy), and cellular reproduction (growth) is alive.”
Footnotes:
1. Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. (p. 35) Life Cycle Books., 2016
2. Alan Shlemon, (April 20th, 2019).  “Making Abortion Unthinkable,” Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eKmPqW0RZY
3.. Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.  (p. 37) Crossway, 2009 
VIDEO PLAYLIST
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Why do you believe the embryo is not alive?
  • What do you mean by alive? 
  • If they are not alive, then why have an abortion? 
  • Do you mean that the unborn isn’t yet a valuable person?
RESOURCES:
"A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN"
"In most cases, those favoring abortion agree that human persons are valuable. They disagree, though, on whether the unborn child is, in fact, an example of an innocent human person."
-Greg Koukl1
       "Fetus" is a term used to define a specific stage in human development. We also use words like infant, toddler, adolescent, teen, and young adult to define a particular stage in human development. The word "embryo" or "fetus" may provide emotional detachment for the Pro-choice advocate, but it does not dissolve human dignity from the baby.  There is no reason that you can't use the term fetus or baby, what matters is how you define them. A fetus is clearly human since it comes from human parents (Law of Biogenesis) and has the genetic characteristics of a human being (DNA). At times, it will be helpful to adopt the language of the person that you are talking with to be able to better communicate in love. Using the term fetus does not concede your point but it may allow it to be received.
        “Again, no one is claiming that embryos are mature human beings. Rather, my claim is that they are distinct, living, and whole members of the human species regardless of their size or location. As is true of infants, toddlers, and teenagers, embryos are human individuals at a particular stage of their development, and thus they do not differ in kind from the mature adults they will one day become.” -Scott Klusendorf2
        “So it seems that you and I agree that we humans have words to refer to different age-ranges in our species. The term fetus, or embryo, is like those other terms. They tell us how old someone is, but not what someone is. If we want to know what someone is, don’t we ask, ‘What are her parents?’ And didn’t you already acknowledge the parents are human?” Stephanie Gray3
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What do you mean by “not human?”
  • When does a fetus (developing human) become human?
  • What makes humans valuable?"
  • Finish this sentence for me: “It's okay to kill a human when…”
  • Can you prove to me that a fetus is not a human?"
  • Why do you believe a fetus is not a human?
RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
           1.Koukl, Gregory. Precious Unborn Human Persons.
           2. Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life:Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.  (p. 37) Crossway, 2009 
           3. Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. (p. 39) Life Cycle Books., 2016
"A FETUS DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME HUMAN VALUE"
The real question today is not when human life begins, but, what is the value of human life?
Ronald Reagan 1
       This is called the “Personhood Argument.” The Personhood argument is the view that, “the fetus is alive, separate from the mother and human but does not have the same value as born human. They are alive humans but not persons” We need to  clarify three things before we move forward:
  • 1. Do you believe that the fetus is separate from the mother, human, and alive? 
  • 2. Do you have a justification for why an unborn human is not considered human? (i.e. size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency.)
  • 3. Do you believe that certain individuals can be classified not persons? 

1. Do you believe that the fetus is separate from the mother, human and alive?
2. Do you have a justification for why an unborn human is not considered human?
A helpful acronym developed by Stephen Schwarz in his book, The Moral Question of Abortion is SLED. 2
  • Size: Yes, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value. 
  • Degree of dependency: If viability makes us valuable human beings, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable, and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.
  • Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable. 
  • Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four-year-old girls are less developed than fourteen-year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Remember, six-week-old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s disease.

3. Do you believe that certain individuals can be classified as not persons? 
Abraham Lincoln comments on discrimination are applicable to this question:
  • You say “A” is white and “B” is black. It is color, then: the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are a slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly—You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again: By this rule you are to be a slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own. But you say it is a question of interest, and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. 3
Abortion logic really is repackaged discrimination. 
  • “Abortion turns out to be a form of discrimination. We have a history on our planet of taking a class of of human beings and disqualifying them from personhood in order to engage in some type of discrimination…we had discrimination against African Americans because of their color of skin, we had discrimination of Jews because of their race and now we have the discrimination against the unborn [based on the fact they are unborn.]” Alan Shlemon 4
    • “We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life-the unborn-without diminishing the value of all human life.” Ronald Reagan 5
VIDEO PLAYLIST
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Are we valuable for what we can do functionally or  who we are intrinsically? 
  • Is human value a subjective opinion or objective reality? 
  • What gives humans value? 
  • What reason do you believe the fetus shouldn’t be considered persons? 

RESOURCES:
  • Footnotes:
    • 1.Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. (p. 43) Nashville: T. Nelson, 1984. Print. 
    • 2. Schwarz, Stephen D. The Moral Question of Abortion. (p. 18) Loyola Pr, 1990, Loyola Pr, 1990.
    • 3. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 2 (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 222.
    • 4. Alan Shlemon, (April 20th, 2019).  “Making Abortion Unthinkable,” Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eKmPqW0RZY
    • 5. Ibid., (p. 39)
    • 6. Koukl, Gregory. Precious Unborn Human Persons.

"WE CAN'T KNOW WHEN HUMAN LIVE BEGINS"
There are three pieces of evidence that I would like to present for life beginning at conception:

1. Intuition 
       Stephanie Gray made an excellent point in her book, Love Unleashes Life, ”Isn’t it interesting that when someone wants an abortion, they claim to not know when life begins, but when someone wants a baby, they know precisely when life begins?”1 
       We all intuitively know when we witness life inside the womb, it is an innocent human person. This is why when women see ultrasounds of their babies they intuitively know that their baby is more than “a blob of cells.” When it comes to saving lives, reaching the heart is more effective than reaching the mind. Consider this, “78% of women who choose to see an ultrasound of their babies choose not to have abortions” 2

2. Science
      Embryology Texts Confirm that Life Begins at Fertilization: The Pro-life website abort73.com provides a list of medical textbooks that clearly identifies fertilization as the beginning of an individual’s life. These include Keith L. Moore’s book Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and T. W. Sadler’s book Langman’s Medical Embryology.

3. Caution
      Ronald Reagan put it this way, “Anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it.” 3
When life hangs in the balance, our humanity demands that we show great reverence and caution with our actions. Life is too important to be reckless.
RESPONSES:
  • When do you believe human life begins? Why? 
  • If you are unsure when human life begins, why shouldn’t you give life the benefit of the doubt? 
  • Would you apply this same logic to a toddler?
  • What scientific facts support your view? 
  • Have you ever looked at what Embryology textbooks say about the beginning of life? 
  • Is there any point that non-life does exist? 
  • What is required for something to be considered living?
  • What is required for life to be considered human?

RESOURCES:
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
Footnotes:
        1. Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. (p. 43) Life Cycle Books., 2016
        2. Adam Cohen “The Next Abortion Battleground: Fetal Heartbeats” Time Ideas, October 17, 2011
        3. Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. (p. 42) Nashville: T. Nelson, 1984. Print.
"IF IT DOESN'T HAVE HEARTBEAT or BRAIN, IT ISN'T A PERSON"
“We work feverishly to extract a coal miner hidden under a mountain of earth in the hope that his heart will still be beating when we get to him. Why not the infant human, heart beating, hidden within it’s mother’s body?”
Greg Koukl 1
There are two things to consider when we talk about development being a criteria for personhood: first, does this apply to all human development?, and secondly, how significant is the distinction?
  • 1. Does this view apply to all human development? 
    • A) Trot out the Toddler
      • True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four-year-old girls are less developed than fourteen-year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings?-Stephen Schwarz 2
    • B) We are valuable intrinsically 
      • Given that fetuses lack the brain development necessary to immediately exercise these capacities, they do not bear God’s image the way real persons do. -Scott Klusendorf 3
      • “We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life-the unborn-without diminishing the value of all human life.” Ronald Reagan 4
  • 2. How significant is this distinction? 
    • A) The distinction between the living and dead is significant. 
      • The difference between the person that has died (heart stops, brain is dead) and the unborn is that the unborn will grow into a healthy human. Unlike the deceased, the unborn are developing in their health. The unborn have all the potential to thrive as a human. Their degree of development or dependency does not determine their intrinsic value. 
    • B) The rate of development between the unborn and born is significant. 
      • Consider that in just a few weeks the embryo will have a heartbeat and brain waves. The rapid rate of development should give us pause to our view. Would you apply this same logic of a mere 6 week developmental distinction to a toddler’s human value? “A lot of women are unaware of just how rapidly their pre-born children are growing (for example, that a baby’s heartbeat has been detected at 3 weeks, and brainwaves have been detected at 6 weeks—learn more prenatal facts at ehd.org).” 5
      • “The rate of growth is astonishing. In fact, during the several days following implantation, the embryo doubles in size every day. If such rapid growth were maintained throughout the pregnancy, the baby would be larger than the sun at birth! In just six weeks time, the human embryo goes from looking like a "bunch of cells" to looking like a baby – though only a half inch tall!” -Abort73.com 6
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • When does fetal brain development start? 
  • When is a fetal heartbeat detectable?
  • Does a person who has limited brain activity have less value?
  • Does a person put on bi-pass less human?
  • May I take you to a site which has amazing scientific facts of your baby’s development?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
  • 1. Koukl, Gregory. Precious Unborn Human Persons. (p.46)
  • 2. Schwarz, Stephen D. The Moral Question of Abortion. (p. 18) Loyola Pr, 1990
  • 3.Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. (p.143) Crossway, 2009
  • 4. Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. (p. 39) Nashville: T. Nelson, 1984. Print. 
  • 5. Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. (p. 43) Life Cycle Books., 2016
  • 6. Spielman, Michael. “Prenatal Development”. https://abort73.com/abortion/prenatal_development/.
"A FETUS IS A PERSON WHEN IT CAN FEEL PAIN"
"Open the casket we must. Until we do, Americans will continue tolerating an injustice they never have to look at."
Scott Klusendorf
Not all human perception of pain is the same. 
Human value can’t be dependent on subjective perception. Human perception can change from person to person and moment to moment. Our human value has to be independent our human perception. It can’t be that all humans have functional sense of pain, for example, those who are paralyzed or are in comas to achieve personhood. We wouldn’t dare consider terminating the life of a person without the ability to feel pain.
Sean McDowell points out in his book, Ethix1, “...this confuses the feeling of harm with the reality of harm.” Just because harm cannot be felt doesn’t mean that it isn’t being committed. Even when tragedy is painless, it is still is tragic. 


Abortion procedures are horrifically violent at all stages. 
We would encourage you to take the time to investigate abortion procedures. Many clinic workers have left the abortion industry because of the fetal pain they witnessed during abortions. Live Action and Abort73 have both reported on abortion procedures. Abby Johnson the author of Unplanned and a former Planned Parenthood Clinic Director was asked to assist with an ultrasound-guided abortion. She watched in horror as a 13 week baby fought for, and ultimately lost its life at the hand of the abortionist. What disturbed her the most was the baby trying to pull away from the abortionist instruments. It was this experience that led her to leave the abortion industry. Just because fetal pain is not always witnessed doesn’t mean that there is no pain felt.
Footnotes:
  • 1. McDowell, Sean. Ethix: Being Bold in a Whatever World. B&H Publishing Group, 2006
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSE:
  • Is someone less valuable because they are paralyzed? 
  • Did you know that fetuses have been seen on sonogram to pull away from the abortionist instruments?
  • Have you researched abortion procedures? 
  • Is someone less human because they have nerve damage?

RESOURCES:
"A FETUS BECOMES A PERSON WHEN IT'S VIABLE"
Technology cannot change the objective value of a human.
Viability is the point when the baby is able to survive outside the womb. This is generally at 23 weeks gestation. Many states have laws in place to ban, “late-term abortion.” But every year, technology pushes back the age of viability. In 2018, Saybie was born at 23 weeks gestation, weighing just 245 grams (8.6 ounces). Can we change personhood by a subjective line of viability?

Why are you against late-term abortion? What’s the difference?
      Many are opposed to abortions after 23 weeks because of the existential nature of the unborn but rather, the horrific nature of the abortion.  The real motivation for taking a stance against late-term abortion is because it’s subjectively unpleasant not because it objectively murder. Many times it boils down to a relativistic statement, “I am personally against all abortion but I can’t stand late-term abortion.”  Consider, at 23 weeks, the baby has a heart, brain, fingernails, fingerprints, fingers and toes. There is very little physiological change between 22 and 23 weeks and absolutely no ontological change between conception and 23 weeks. When we look at the physical nature of the unborn we see that viability is an arbitrary line we created because late-term it’s unsavory. Our need for nurture doesn’t change our intrinsic nature.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Would you join with me a restrict all abortions beyond 23 weeks? 
  • If a baby in a third-world country is born at 23 weeks and not viable because of the lack of medical services, are they not persons?
  • Is an individual with incurable cancer not human

RESOURCES:
  "A FETUS IS A PERSON WHEN IT IS BORN"
The pre-born are in their mothers’ bodies because in our species, at that age, that’s the environment we need.
-Stephanie Gray
This return us to the third point that Stephen Schwarz made in his SLED acronym: 
  • Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed?  If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal or delivered via cesarean suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.
    
        As Stephanie Gray points out, “Yes, she needs food and the right environment to grow in, but don’t you and I need food and the right environment to continue our growth too?” All organic species are dependent on their environment. We all understand, we didn’t begin living on the day of our birth. We just became residents in a new home. Personhood does not change when you move locations. There is a growing awareness as nation, that just because you were born somewhere else doesn’t negate your humanity, when we will understand that being born doesn’t establish your humanity either? 

     To illustrate this point, on the day of my child’s birth, if the doctor came into the room and ripped my child from my arms and killed my baby, it would be homicide. But a couple hours before, inside the womb, the same doctor could legally kill my child (depending on which state you live in.) In the state of New York with it is legal to kill a baby up to birth with “proper justification.” The horrors of partial-birth abortion and late-term abortion are a symptoms of the environmental personhood worldview. We need to challenge this dangerous prejudicial worldview on all fronts.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Do you support infanticide? Why not? 
  • Do you believe that we should do all we can to protect human life? 
  • Do you believe human life is valuable? Does it differ inside the womb?
  • Have you ever considered how arbitrary location is when determining personhood? 
  • Are you less of a person when you move to another city? 
  • Are people from other nations less valuable?

RESOURCES:
 "THE FETUS IS A PARASITE (or trespasser)”
See Also: "A fetus is a person when it's viable" and "My Body, My Choice" (Personal Autonomy)
A parasite is an alien being who should not be present. The mother’s child was conceived with her own flesh and blood
and is where he naturally belongs at that stage in his development. 
Scott Klusendorf 1
The uterus sole design is for the purpose of nurturing the fetus.
        “A fetus can be compared to a parasite in many ways.
The fetus lives inside the mother, gets food and water from her body, and can be a very serious burden on her.” 2

        What is the difference? The parasite is alien while the fetus is right where it belongs naturally. The uterus sole design is for the purpose of nurturing the fetus. The gastrointestinal system is not designed for the tapeworm. The fetus cannot be considered a trespasser anymore than a toddler is a trespasser in his mother’s home. The womb is the unborn’s home, shouldn’t our homes be the safest place for our growth?

Footnotes:
RESPONSES:
  • How is a fetus similar to a tapeworm?
  • Does a human have any moral obligation to a parasite?
  • Does a mother have a moral obligation to her offspring? 
  • How is a breastfeeding infant any different than a fetus in the uterus?
  • Do you believe the greater the dependency, the lesser the human value? 
  • If you became an invalid, would you no longer be valuable?
RESOURCES:
 "A FETUS IS NOT SELF-AWARE, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT HUMAN"
Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings.
-Stephen Schwarz
Are newborns persons?
        Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. If that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings.

Are you less human while asleep?
         Consider your self-aware state when you are sleeping, you are unaware of state of being. Would it be justified for someone to kill you while you are in an extended state of sleep? Consider further that your friend is watching you sleep in hostile environment, does your friend have a moral obligation to protect you while you sleep? Oblivion (lack of self-awareness) increases your vulnerability, it does not decrease your value. Wouldn’t you say we have a greater moral obligation to protect the unconscious? 
        You may respond, “But I will wake up and be aware again.” Does this not apply to the fetus too? He is mere weeks from sucking his thumb, experience his first brain waves and so much more. In a little under two years time, he will be taking his first steps and saying his first words. When a person has severe brain trauma, they don’t lose their human dignity. They may lose their capabilities but never their humanity. An unaware, unborn person should be recognized by us even when they may not know it yet.

RESPONSES:
  • Do you believe in human rights?” Do you believe we should protect the unaware? 
  • What is the standard of self-awareness that demands we protect life? 
  • Do you believe you are fully self-aware? 
  • Have you considered that newborns aren’t self-aware either?”

RESOURCES:
 "I AM PRO-CHOICE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE"
Everyone is asking the same exact question: what makes humans valuable in the first place? Science can’t answer that question because science deals only with things we can measure empirically through the senses.
Scott Klusendorf 1
       You can be Pro-Life and Pro-science. We believe that the advancement of  science has done much to affirm the Pro-life ethic. While Science cannot prescribe a Pro-life ethic, only confirm it.

Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. 
       Secular Pro-Life does a great job at getting to the heart of this issue, “The truth is science tells us the fetus is an organism and a member of our species (and it is a “deep scientific lack of understanding” to suggest otherwise). But science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Through genetics we know each of us inherits a mixture of our parents’ DNA; through embryology we know that our hearts begin to beat about three weeks after fertilization; through ultrasound and magnetic resonance technology we can watch the embryo's movements, which provide sensory input that spurs brain development; and yet this wealth of information can't indicate whether or why we should care.” 2 

       As Scott Klusendorf says in The Case for Life3, “Admittedly, science cannot tell us how we should treat unborn humans. It can’t tell us what’s right and what’s wrong. Is it wrong to torture toddlers for fun after beating your wife? Science can’t help you with that question.” 

Science confirms humanity. 
       “There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the same being as the mother—and is therefore a unified whole.”  Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Co-founder of NARAL 4
As Alen Shlemon points out in Making Abortion Unthinkable, science enables us to confirm that the unborn are in fact separate, living, humans beings.
  • Unborn is alive
    • The unborn meets the scientific criteria for life. It grows, responds to stimuli and metabolizes nutrients and converts it to energy
    • The unborn is growing
    • No period of non-life that exists
  • The unborn is a separate individual from the mother
    • The unborn has different blood type, heart and circulation system
    • The unborn can be a different gender
    • They have different DNA
    • They have different fingerprints
  • The individual is human
    • It’s DNA is human
    • Law of Biogenesis  (that every species reproduces after its own kind)5
ABORT73.com has also put together a great argument using Medical Testimony. 

Science reveals humanity.
        “We now have windows into the womb to see out precious unborn children.” Ashley McGuire writes, “Incredible advances in science have made it possible for young women such as myself to first greet our children and witness their miraculous development beginning when they aren't much bigger than a legume. Today's women track their baby's developments with any number of smartphone apps. Today's children are growing up in a world where ultrasound pictures of their siblings are taped to the family refrigerator.” 6

“That’s my baby”
         Any parent who has had the privilege of seeing their child on an ultrasound monitor, can tell you that it’s a profound bonding experience. I have heard testimonies of women walking out of abortion clinics because of seeing thier baby on a ultrasound. The pregnancy test experience, “we are having a baby” is transcended by the ultrasound experience, “that’s my baby.” The science of ultrasound technology helps reveal the personhood of the unborn by making it deeply personal. This is a subjective experience, many can see their baby’s fingers, toes, face, and movement in the womb and deny it’s humanity. But I believe that is more revealing to the parent’s humanity than the unborn’s personhood.

VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
  • RESPONSES
    • What scientific evidence leads you to believe the unborn is not human? 
    • Why does bring pro-science mean that you have to be pro-abortion?
    • What science have you studied?
    • Have you studied Embryology? 
    • Did you know that most scientists believe that life begins at conception? 
    • At what stage of gestational development is the fetus not human?
 
“No one cares when a sperm or egg dies, why do you care that a zygote dies?”
See "A fetus is not a human"
“An individual cell’s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity. True, it’s an immature human, as is an infant, but it’s a whole human organism nonetheless.” -Scott Klusendorf 1
      
The sperm are just a part of the whole. 
The important distinction between a sperm/egg and a zygote, the sperm/egg are just a part of a whole. No one is concerned when their hair falls out, the skin sleuths off or they trim their fingernails. Why? Because we all understand that those cells are simply are part of us, not what makes us a whole person. The sperm/egg are the cells that made us who we are today, but they are not who we are today. A miracle takes place at fertilization, new DNA is made, a new person is created. The sperm and egg are no longer two cells, they are one cell, a person! This is the beginning of life!
  • RESPONSES:
    • Why do you think a sperm is as valuable as a zygote?
    • Do you see any distinction between a zygote and sperm? Do you see any distinction between fetus and zygote? Fetus and infant? Infant and toddler? Toddler and teen? What stage of development does a person become valuable?
 
Footnotes:
1. Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. (p.38) Crossway, 2009

JUSTIFIED ABORTION

F O U N D A T I O N  # 2  :  W h e n   c a n   y o u   k i l l   t h e   u n b o r n ?
WHAT ABOUT RAPE?
        In her book Love Unleashes Life, Stephanie Gray remarked, “As my friends at Justice for All often point out, when people ask about rape, they typically aren’t seeking to know if the baby is human; they’re seeking to know if the pro-lifer is human.” 1  

In a similar response, Alan Shlemon has said, “Often when the issue of rape is brought up it is not to see if you have a logical response. It is to see if you have a heart. Unfortunately, we fail that test.” 2 


Respond from the heart.
       The rape question is usually a question from the heart and not from the head. We should be careful to first respond from our heart. Once we have been felt, then we can be heard. Massive doses of love need to be received before the booster shot of truth can be administered. Asking the question, “Do you know someone who has been in such a situation?” can help you gauge where the source of their questioning is coming from. 

         Scott Klusendorf points out in his book, The Case for Life, “Two types of people ask this question, the learner and the crusader. The learner is genuinely trying to work through the issue and resolve it rationally. The crusader just wants to make you look bad.”3
       We have to be careful that we aren’t allowing someone to exploit rape victims for the sake of winning an argument. If you are in a dialogue with a crusader, remember, someone might be listening who is learner. Always proceed with compassion.

Women want their babies. 
       Studies have shown that women who have been raped want to keep their babies and are happier when they choose life. One study1 found that 73% of pregnant rape victims choose life. 64% raise their children, and 36% place their babies for adoption. 88% of women who aborted regretted their abortions and felt they made the wrong choice. Only one woman felt positive about her abortion. Of the women who carried to term, not one regretted having her baby or wished she had aborted instead. Over 80% explicitly expressed happiness about their child and their situation. 4 
       When a woman chooses to have an abortion after rape, they are choosing a secondary trauma. Many women say that the date of their abortion is a reminder of their rape and some have even said, “the abortion was a greater trauma.” Supporting abortion in the case of rape is supporting a cause that women do not want. 

Don’t punish the victim. 
       Lastly, should a child be punished for it’s father’s crimes? In America, rapists are not given lethal injection, why should their child pay for their crimes? As Stephanie Gray wrote, “Is it fair to give the death penalty to the innocent child? By using the terms ‘death penalty,’ I was indirectly contrasting the consequence facing a child conceived by rape (abortion, i.e., death penalty) with the consequence facing the rapist (i.e., no death penalty).” 
        Many brave children of rapists have taken to social media to proclaim, “I am a product of rape, does my life not matter?” We have shared their inspiring stories in the resources below, along with the stories of mothers who bravely chose life in the face of tragedy. As one mother said, “My son is a million things that have nothing to do with rape.”
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSE:
  • Do you know anyone who’s experienced rape?
    • How are they doing?
  • Why do you think abortion will help a rape victim?
  • Have you found healing from your trauma?
  • Would you join me in opposing abortions for all other reasons other than rape? 
  • Is rape the only reason that you believe it is justified for an abortion?
  • Can you give me an example of when it is appropriate to punish the child for the father’s crimes? 
  • Would you want your mom to chose life if you were the product of rape?
  • How should we treat  people who remind us of a painful event? 
  • Would be okay to kill a two year old who is the product of rape to make his mother feel better? Why or why not? 
  • You are right, rape is unbearably hard, what do you think the best way we can help a woman who has been victimized?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
  • 1 Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth . Life Cycle Books. Kindle Edition.
  • 2 Alan Shlemon, Oregon Right To Life, April 27, 2013
  • 3. Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life (p. 173). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
  • 4. David C Reardon, Julie Makimaa, and Amy Sobie Victims and Victors: Speaking out about Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault (Springfield, Illinois: Acorn Books, 2000)
"Bringing these children into the world can be an economic drain."
When making decisions about right and wrong we ask what is good, not what is easy. We ask what is virtuous, not what is convenient.” -Greg Koukl 1
Affluence has made us narrow-minded.
       Consider what we are saying about people who are categorized as poor, “a poor life is not a worthwhile life.” The American lifestyle has caused us to devalue the poor. Travel to any other third-world country and you will find happy impoverished children.
       As Mark Twain  has remarked, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”2
        Our American worldview that happiness is linked to wealth is narrow-minded. You can be both poor and happy.
     Low-income families are at highest risk for abortion. 
Make no mistake, the poor and low-income family is at highest risk for abortion. 76% of abortion patients come from low income or poor families. 3 Part of the reason is that abortion clinics are purposely placed in low-income communities as an act of so-called “compassion.” Another reason, is that financially struggling parents have bought into the myth that they cannot provide for their child. (See our blog series, 10 Myths of Parenting) The reality of parenting is that you will never feel financially prepared to take care of your child. Even wealthy parents in the most prosperous nations with numerous social programs can fall short of the financial needs for their children. 

A poor person is still a person.
     What we cannot lose site of is the value of human life. If the unborn is intrinsically valuable, financial hardship is not an adequate justification for abortion. We now can “trot out the toddler”. We have established that the unborn’s personhood is equal to a toddler. Therefore, just as you would not justify the killing of your two-year-old to alleviate financial hardship, you also cannot justify the killing of your unborn child for the same reason.

Killing doesn’t solve poverty. 
        OverPopulationIsaMyth.com points out, “over-population does not cause poverty.” The lack of infrastructure, community, and peace. There are enough resources just not enough resourceful people. 

Have you ever asked a poor woman what she needs?
      Anna Reynolds wrote in her piece, No, children who would be born into poverty are not better off aborted,  “Instead of assuming we know what women need, it is time our society listened to them.” 4 This is an excellent point, when did we begin to believe that times are so desperate that we sentence a mother to life of despair knowing that she killed her child for financial gain. What do women in crisis need? I am sure their first thought is not terminating their child’s life. Let’s ask them and then help them!
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Do you know anyone who’s suffered in poverty?
  • Wouldn’t it be better that we alleviate suffering instead of eliminating the sufferers?
  • Do you think it’s possible for a poor child to have a worthwhile life?
  • Were you raised in poverty?   

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“What about incest?”
“I considered the idea that my mother may have had a happier life if she had been able to abort me, and I was troubled enough to imagine that maybe I would have been better off not having been born. I literally believed that.” -Donna Shibuya 1
Who does abortion help in the case of incest?
       The first question to ask yourself is, “Who does abortion help in the case of incest?” The answer is not the woman or the child but the abusive family member. Abortion always adds additional trauma to tragedy. Men who have forced themselves on their daughters, sisters, nieces, or granddaughters know that they can walk away without consequence with a trip to the local abortion clinic. Is justice really being served? Undercover videos have revealed that abortion clinics have protected pimps by performing abortions on sex trafficking victims without reporting it to authorities. Familial rapists have similarly been protected by the abortion industry’s practice of secret abortion. Abortion does not relieve pain, it finalizes it. Abortion is a death sentence to the most vulnerable victim: the baby.

What are you communicating?
         What are you communicating to the young men and women who have been born as a result of rape and incest? You are communicating that they are not human, that they are freaks. As you encourage mothers to abort their children, other survivors are listening and questioning their very existence.
      In working with youth over the years we have heard them say, “It would have been better if I was never born.” Could you imagine if our response was, “It all depends on how you were conceived?” The current cultural narrative is not about healing, but hiding. Burying trauma doesn’t end the disease, it entombs victims in their pain. Our message, The Gospel, is that there is hope for your hurting heart. Jesus can restore the most broken soul to wholeness again. Jesus can not only heal your hurt but give it purpose beyond your understanding. (Romans 8:28)

Conception does not define dignity.
        Adopted children who have been conceived in these circumstances can live an entire life not knowing the difference. Do you know the circumstances of how anyone was conceived when first meeting them? It’s usually not an important detail in order to evaluate someone’s worth. The means of your conception does not define your value. Human value is intrinsic, not idealistic. Choose adoption, not abortion!
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • How would abortion help a victim of incest?
  • Do you know anyone who has been born who is a product of incest?
  • Do you know anyone who has had an abortion because of incest? How are they doing now?
  • Why is this issue important to you?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“What if the life of the mother is in danger?”
“If we could save the mother’s life without doing an abortion, do you think we should choose the non-abortion option?” -Stephanie Gray 1
We should do all we can to save both the life of the mother and the child. 
       This objection by far is the most challenging objection to respond to appropriately. The ideal outcome is a healthy mother and child. But not all pregnancies are ideal, unexpectedly, parents can be faced with life and death choices. This is not an easy decision but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a morally correct choice. Every medical situation is different but it’s important to keep in mind, all life matters. No life should be killed to save the other. 
Consider these quotes from Pro-Life OBGYNs:
  •  American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    • “Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of pregnancy. American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes abortion. When in extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise..., AAPLOG believes in ‘treatment to save the mother’s life,’ including premature delivery if that is indicated – obviously with the patient’s informed consent.  This is NOT ‘abortion to save the mother’s life.’ We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.” 2
  • Dublin Declaration
    • “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” 3
  • Doctors Christina Francis, Ingrid Skop, and Anthony Levatino 
    • “Early medically indicated separation, whether via cesarean section or induced labor, performed for life threatening indications for the mother, is not an abortion because it does not intend to produce a dead baby. Regrettably, in the rare event that this occurs prior to the point where the baby can survive outside of the womb (currently just a little over halfway through a pregnancy), the death of the baby is a foreseen but unintended consequence of the early separation. However, if this occurs when the baby can survive outside of the womb, excellent medical care dictates that we continue to care for both mother and baby.”4

Intention matters. 
       If a medical procedure is performed to save the life of the mother and, as a result, the child dies, this is a Pro-life position. The intention was to save life. If the intention is to kill the child (abortion) for the health of the mother, this a Pro-choice position. The intention was to kill from the start.

The “health of the mother” is different than the “life of the mother.”
        We need to consider that the language “health of the mother.” This phrase is what many legislators this year have manipulated to allow abortion anytime for any reason in their state. (Even abortion right up to the point of birth.)
        Consider the Supreme Court’s statement in Doe v Bolton, “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health…..” 5
         Health of the mother can be manipulated to mean anything you want. The language that we use makes a difference. “Life of the mother” and “health of the mother” are two completely different terms. “Life of the mother” is related to her survival while “the health of the mother” is related to her quality of life.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • If we could save the mother’s life without doing an abortion, do you think we should choose the non-abortion option?
  • What medical condition in the woman’s body will be fixed by us attacking the baby’s body?
  • Do you see a difference between induced labor and abortion?
  • What do you mean by the health of the mother?
  • Do you only support the decision to abort if the pregnancy is life-threatening to the mother?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
"My Body, My Choice" (Personal Autonomy)
“A right isn’t a right if I only apply it to ME and remain unwilling to grant to others what I ask for myself. To put it simply, a woman’s right over her own body does not include the right to end the life of an innocent human being.” -Kirsten Waston, co-founder of One More Foundation1
What is the unborn?
       The first step in any Pro-life discussion is always bringing it back to the nature of the unborn. If the unborn is an innocent human person, then bodily autonomy is not adequate justification for the intentional killing of a human being. Asking the question, “What is the unborn?” should be enough to answer this objection. 
       Perhaps a person believes that the bodily autonomy ethic eclipses the sanctity of life ethic. In other words, “I believe that I should be able to do whatever I want with my body and it is irrelevant how anyone else is affected.” But is that what they truly believe? You can follow up, “Do you believe a pregnant mother should be allowed to do drugs or drink no matter how that adversely affects the unborn? Do you believe a person should be able to drink and drive? Are there any limits you would put on what someone does with their body?” We all believe that bodily autonomy has its limits when it endangers the life of another human being. What we fail to apply is our belief that the unborn are equally valuable lives. 

If it was your body, it would be your choice. 
         We also need to show that the unborn is separate from the mother. We can accomplish this by asking the question, “How many eyes do you have? How many toes? How many hearts? How many lungs? How many brains? Does a pregnant woman have two hearts, two brains, or four lungs?” When an abortion advocate says, “A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body.” Another question you can ask is: “You are right, she can do what she wants with her body, but can you prove to me that the unborn is a part of her body?” 

Alan Shlemon illustrates this in his presentation, Making Abortion Unthinkable: 
  • The unborn has different blood type, heart and circulation system.
  • They have different fingerprints.
  • They have different DNA.
  • The unborn can be a different gender.

Dependency does not determine personhood. 
       Many will concede that the unborn is human and separate from the mother but that they are dependent on the mother. (See Degree of Dependency by Stephen Swartz in "A fetus does have the same human value." and “the Violinist” ) 
Stephanie Gray points out, “Consider this: doesn’t dependency of younger humans generally heighten the responsibility of older humans?” At some point you were vulnerable and someone took care of you to allow you to mature into an independent adult that you are today. Don’t we have a moral obligation as independent adults to care for dependent children?  It’s a tragic commentary on a culture when we stop caring for the weakest among us. All of us were on biological life support until we were able to support ourselves. 2 

“The true character of society is revealed in how it treats its children.” 3
       “It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” Hubert H. Humphrey4
         We will be judged as a society by the way that we protect our children. A civil society does not exploit it’s children for it own personal gain. What is true for our society should be true for us as individuals too. 

Women were created with the gift of nurture. 
       Stephanie Gray makes an argument that women were created with a specific purpose of nurturing life with their bodies.  “What is the nature and purpose of the uterus versus the nature and purpose of the blood and kidneys?” Can a woman live without her uterus? Yes. Can an early pre-born child live without a woman’s uterus? No. Those questions, and answers, tell us something: they tell us that the uterus exists more for one’s offspring than for oneself.” 

       This does not deny a woman’s right to choose to have or when to have children. Once pregnant she has great responsibility to her child to nurture him into the world. Women do not only exist just to be mothers, but then again, not one of us would exist without our mothers. We are thankful for the sacrifices that our mothers made for those first months or our existence.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What is the unborn?
  • Do you believe a pregnant mother should be allowed to do drugs or drink, no matter how that adversely affects the unborn?
  • Do you believe a person should be able to drink and drive? Is there anything you would do to limit what a person can do with their body?
  • Does a pregnant woman have two hearts, two brains, or four lungs?
  • You are right, she can do what she wants with her body. But is the unborn her body?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
  • 1.Watson, Kirsten. “My Body, My Choice”. https://prolifereplies.liveaction.org/my-body-my-choice/.
  • 2. Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. (p. 53) Life Cycle Books., 2016
  • 3.Nelson Mandela, September 27, 1997
  • 4. Senator HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, remarks at the dedication of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, November 1, 1977.—Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, vol. 123, p. 37287.
  • 5. Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. (p. 57) Life Cycle Books., 2016
“People aren’t forced to donate life saving organs. Why should a woman be forced to use her body as life support for the unborn?” (The Violinist)
       This objection has challenged and caught off guard many Pro-life apologists. It is a challenge to respond to this argument because the Pro-choice advocate is conceding the personhood of the unborn. We would highly suggest reading Scott Klusendorf’s response in the Case for Life, Chapter 15 and Greg Koukl’s response, Unstringing the Violinist.

The Violinist Argument
         What is the violinist argument? You can read the full illustration by Judith Jarvis Thompson here. Amy Hall summarizes it for us, “A woman wakes up to find she’s been attached without her consent to a famous violinist who needs the help of her kidneys for the next nine months in order to live. If the woman detaches herself from him, he will die.”1  
       Should the women be forced to provide life support for the violinist? Doesn’t her bodily autonomy trump his right to life? 

Parents have a moral responsibility to their children. 
       Scott Klusendorf, Greg Koukl and Stephen Schwarz all make the primary point, “What if the mother woke to find herself surgically connected to her own child?” The moral responsibility that parents have to their own children strengthens the ethic to provide life saving support. Unlike the violinist intruder, the child is exactly where it should be. (See “The fetus is a parasite (or trespasser)”

Proactive killing is different than withholding life support. 
        Klusendorf points out there is a major difference between withholding support and proactive, intentional killing of a child via abortion (the killing of a child through dismemberment, poison, or crushing). Not feeding the poor when you have the means is cruel. Systematically killing the poor is murder. Failing to appropriately feed your children is negligent. Poisoning them intentionally is murder. If the unborn are persons, then abortion for the sake of bodily autonomy is murder. 
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What would you do if you woke up connected to another person as their life support? What would you do if it was your child?
  • Would you give your life to save the life of your child?
  • Do you believe that parents have a moral responsibility to provide, protect, and nurture their children?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“The decision to get an abortion is between a woman and her doctor”
“After demanding that the decision to abort be left up to a woman and ‘her doctor,’ they turn around and tell the doctor that he must never object to any abortion, under any circumstance” Michael Spielman, Abort73.com 1
Abortionist are not doctors. 
       A doctor has taken the Hippocratic Oath, “do no harm.” An abortionist job is to intentionally end the life of the unborn. An abortionist and obstetrician are not the same profession. One is an executioner delivering a death sentence, the other is a healer fighting for the life of the vulnerable unborn to the day of delivery. Famed American anthropologist Margaret Mead said this of the ancient decree [Hippocratic Oath]: “For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing. Throughout the primitive world, the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person...He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill [but] with the Greeks the distinction was made clear. [Physicians] were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age or intellect—the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child.” 2
       A doctor simply cannot make the decision to abort a baby without violating their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. 

What about the doctors with the moral conviction against abortion? 
This is not to mention the thousands of doctors who have moral conviction to never perform an abortion. Does forcing doctors to violate their most sacred oath seem ethical? Doctors know that abortion is not the best medical choice for their patient or the unborn. 
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists states, “Recent concerted attempts to use punitive legal coercion to force health care professionals to participate in or perform the killing of their patients has resulted in a need to clearly again articulate the fundamental tenets of Hippocratic Medicine, which explicitly separates medical care from the intentional killing of human beings. It is because the health care professional has bound herself or himself to do and not to do certain things prescribed or prohibited in the Hippocratic Oath, that the patient can trust that the professional will at all times act on her behalf.  These tenets have formed the foundation of Western medical ethics for over 2000 years.”3

Women don’t make this decision with a doctor. 
Consider that a woman with a crisis pregnancy who goes into an abortion clinic will never speak to her doctor until she is having the abortion. Abortion clinics are not a place of informed consent, they are business to make money. I think that we all acknowledge that doctors are a gift to our society to help navigate our most difficult medical decisions. They are a gift from God to humanity but they are not God. Science does not prescribe morality, it can only confirm it. As a scientist, your doctor can inform you medically but they cannot tell you from science what to do morally. Seek out a doctor that is willing to respect your decisions and inform you correctly. A doctor that is willing to kill is not a doctor, they are a “sorcerer.” Go to aaplog.org to find a Pro-life OBGYN.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Why do you trust a doctor? 
  • Do you believe a doctor who is willing to kill is keeping their oath “to do no harm?”
  • Should a doctor be able to tell a woman, “Don’t get an abortion”?
  • Will a woman be able to see a doctor at an abortion clinic before her abortion? Will an abortionist provide prenatal care for the baby he was going to abort?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
  • 1. Spielman, Michael. “Doctor or Abortionist?”. https://abort73.com/blog/doctor_or_abortionist/.
  • 2.Margaret Mead to Maurice Levine. Recounted in Five Days at Memorial: Life and Death in a Storm-Ravaged Hospital, by Sheri Fink. (Broadway Books, 2014) 386.
  • 3. Hippocratic Objection To Killing Human Beings in Medical Practice. Opinion 1, 30 Jan. 2011.
“If the child is going to be born into a lifetime of pain or disability, it is better to be killed.”
“As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the ‘quality of life’ ethic.” -Ronald Reagan 1
Without obstacles there are no overcomers.

        When you consider those who have lived with some of the greatest suffering, you come to realize that without conflict, there are no conquerors. Consider the lives of these overcomers:
  • Joni Eakerson Tada (author, singer, and artist): “A diving accident in 1967 left her, then 17, a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. After two years of rehabilitation, she emerged with new skills and a fresh determination to help others in similar situations. She founded Joni and Friends in 1979, which quickly grew to provide Christ-centered programs to special needs families, churches, and communities. Joni survived stage III breast cancer in 2010, and still keeps a very active ministry schedule.” 2
  • Nick Vujicic: “Nick was born in 1982 in Melbourne, Australia, without arms and legs. Three sonograms failed to reveal complications. And yet, the Vujicic family was destined to cope with both the challenge and blessing of raising a son who refused to allow his physical condition to limit his lifestyle. Nick has traveled around the world, sharing his story with millions, sometimes in stadiums filled to capacity, speaking to a range of diverse groups such as students, teachers, young people, business professionals and church congregations of all sizes...Nick established Life Without Limbs ministry in 2005. He is currently serving as President and CEO.”3
  • “Katherine & Jay Wolf are communicators and advocates. After meeting in college, they married and moved to Los Angeles to pursue careers in law and the entertainment industry. Their son James was born in 2007, and six months later Katherine’s life nearly ended with a catastrophic stroke. Miraculously, she survived and continues her recovery to this day, including having a miracle baby, John, in 2015. Katherine and Jay have shared their journey of steadfast hope through their first book, Hope Heals, and at speaking events both live and online before millions. Together, they founded Hope Heals Camp, a community for families with disabilities like them.” 4
       This is just a sampling of three people who have overcome and have shown others how to live with purpose in the midst of unbelievable suffering. Consider the lives of Helen Keller, Fanny Crosby, FDR, Frank Stephens, John McCain, and the list goes on. Let’s not terminate the lives of overcomers before their race has begun. They may be the very hope that someone else needs in their life. We as American have been defined by our ability to overcome unseen obstacles. But there is a greater hope than just American grit, the hope found in Jesus Christ.

Paul tells us in Romans 8:18, that for the believer it won’t always be this way, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” 

He continues on to remind us that through Jesus we can be more than conquerors, “Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:37-39)

A painful life can still be a worthwhile life.
        As SLC writer, Linsi Clain stated, “Imagine if society took a quality of yours, a quality you were born with, and decided you were less valuable because of it. Imagine, for instance, that we lived in a society where babies that would be left-handed, could now be aborted at any point in pregnancy, simply because of this one quality. Anyone who is left-handed would naturally feel degraded and personally attacked by this type of society. Tragically, this is a harsh reality for individuals in the special needs community. Can we justify ranking human value?” 5 

Don’t you want the opportunity to overcome? Let’s be those who believe that even the most unbelievable obstacle is overcomable. 
“Our society has, fortunately, become sensitive to the rights and special needs of the handicapped, but I am shocked that physical or mental handicaps of newborns are still used to justify their extinction...a child need not be perfect to have a worthwhile life.” Ronald Reagan 6
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What kind of pain is worse than death?
  • Is there any kind of suffering that can’t be overcome?
  • Who should be given the choice of how to live their life of suffering?
  • Is the quality of life ethic more important the sanctity of life ethic?
  • What standard of living needs to be met for an unborn child to qualify for life?
  • Would you apply this same logic to a two-year-old child?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“When the baby won’t survive, having an abortion spares the parents from the pain of giving birth to a terminally ill baby.” 
“Why do you think abortion seems like the solution for people in that crisis?” Stephanie Gray1
Abortion does not heal trauma, it inflicts it.
       An unborn child with a terminal diagnosis has to be one of the most tragic situations that life can deliver to a parent. My heart breaks as I write these words, thinking of loved ones who have lost children in these situations. I don’t think any parent would say that it would have been better to have aborted their terminally-ill unborn child. The moments that these parents get to share with their child are tragic but they are also extremely precious. Stephanie Gray illustrates it this way, “If someone you loved called you and said they were given four weeks left to live, would you wait until week 3, day 6 to visit them, or savor every moment of every day of the next four weeks with them?”2

Fetal diagnosis is fallible.
We also need to consider that prenatal diagnosis is fallible. A simple “prenatal diagnosis” search on Live Action reveals story after story of parents who have chosen life in spite of prenatal diagnosis. Some stories reveal a wrong diagnosis and others show strength in the face of adversity. We live in a time where we have the privilege to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. But should we spare ourselves from the possibility of the worst at the cost of the lives of our children?
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Have you known someone who has lost a child?
  • Do you know someone who has been in this situation? How are they doing now?
  • This is a really impossible situation. How would you respond?
  • Do you think it is better to spend a short time with a loved one than to never meet them?
  • If someone you loved called you and said they were given four weeks left to live, would you wait until week 3 or day 6 to visit them, or savor every moment of every day of the next four weeks with them?
  • Why do you think abortion seems like the solution for people in that crisis?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
  • 1. Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. (p. 98) Life Cycle Books., 2016
  • 2. Ibid., (p. 106)
“We are running out of resources on our planet, we need abortion to control the population.”
        “The truth is that there’s plenty of room on God’s green earth for all of us. America needs to encourage young couples to marry and have children. Children are the only future a nation has; the only future a family has. They are the ultimate resource.

 Overpopulation is not only a myth, it is a myth that kills. And it kills both people and economies. In the world of the 21st century, we need more babies, not fewer. That means ending abortion.” Steven Mosher, Population Research Institute1

We would encourage you to watch Steven Mosher’s response to this objection. He points out agricultural technology that could feed the current population twice over, the perils of the decrease in the workforce, and more. We would also suggest you watch the video series at overpopulationisamyth.com.

 RESOURCES:
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
  • RESPONSES:
    • How do you know the world is overpopulated? What is your reasoning?
    • Did you know that we could fit all the people on earth with their own house and yard in a land mass the size of Texas?
    • Did you know that overpopulation is not the reason for wide-spread hunger?
Footnotes:

PERSONALLY PRO-LIFE

F O U N D A T I O N  # 3 :  W h a t   i s   t r u t h ?
“I am personally against abortion, but I don’t believe in forcing my views on others.”
“‘Let me see If I understand you,’ I said, ‘You are convinced that abortion kills an innocent child, yet you think the law should allow women to do that to their own babies. Did I get that right?’” -Greg Koukl1
Are you complacent in your convictions? 
         We at Speak Life Collective understand your position because at one time or another we wrestled with the same viewpoint to some degree. There is a major difference between being Pro-life in belief and Pro-life in conviction. Let me first share my own (Ryan) personal journey in becoming Pro-life in conviction. I had always believed that abortion was wrong, and disturbing, but my actions didn’t show that I truly believed that. Now, I had never truly held a modified Pro-choice position (Personally Pro-life) but I did hold a complacent one. You can watch the videos that explain my journey. There were a couple experiences that really catapulted me into action:

  • 1. The abortion law in NY state. Seeing how far the Pro-choice advocates were willing to take their idealogies made me realize how complacent I had been protecting the life of the unborn.

  • 2. Seeing the Unplanned movie. The story of Abby Johnson moved the idea from the theoretical to reality in my heart. I believe all people who identify as Pro-life should see this film. Watching the real life pain of abortion being portrayed on the screen was compelling.

  • 3. I heard an apologist say something like, “If 2,500 kindergarten children were killed on the playgrounds every day in America, would your response be enough?” It made me realize what I was willing to tolerate as a citizen. It was a devastating blow to my complacency. I would not allow 2,500 kindergarten to be killed daily in my country, but this is exactly what happens to the unborn every day. 

 “I would never force my views on others.” 
      That was my journey from complacency to conviction. Maybe you aren’t just complacent, maybe you are dismissive. Do you hold personal freedom higher than personhood?
“Some of those who call themselves “personally Pro-life” are under the impression that opposition to abortion “takes away the rights of others.” But this is completely upside down. No one should think they have the right to kill an innocent human being, especially if that human being is their own child. To oppose abortion is to PROTECT children from having their most fundamental rights taken away.” Lila Rose, Live Action Pro-life Replies2

“I won’t stop people from killing their children.”
      As Greg Koukl points out, “The logic of the modified Pro-choice position reduces to, ‘I think it’s wrong to kill my own children, but I don’t think we should stop other people from killing theirs.”3 
      If your neighbor was abusing their children, would you say, “I would never abuse my own children, but I am not going to tell them not to abuse their kids?”  Allowing others to abuse their children reduces your moral position against child abuse to mere preference. Personal morality is not moral, it’s opinion.
“Some people will object to this characterization because they wish to keep the label ‘moral,’ regardless of their ethics. ‘How dare you say I have no morality!’ they protest. ‘I have morality. I do whatever I please. That’s my morality.’ That’s our point. Those who are relativists do whatever they want, and doing whatever one wants is not morality. Morality is doing what’s right, not necessarily what’s pleasant.” -Francis J Beckwith and Greg Koukl4

“Saying nothing is saying something.”
       Not standing up is sitting down. Not speaking is being silent. As I said before, “Saying nothing could cost someone else everything.” Evil thrives in the silence. Sinners unwarned. and unprayed for, are blind. They are walking down a path of destruction without even knowing it. Why would you stay silent? Your silence is screaming the reality of your apathy. 
“Regarding Roe vs. Wade: Imagine you are back in the nineteenth century and the Court is confronted with the issue of enslaving African-Americans. Suppose in the name of state neutering that it delivers the opinion that it takes no stand on the issue. On that basis it allows white Americans to own blacks as property. The court may verbally deny taking any position on this issue, but it’s allowance of slavery is actually morally equivalent to taking a side—that African-Americans are not human persons. Likewise, the Court’s verbal denial of taking a position on fetal personhood is contradicted by its conclusion that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right and that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution.” Francis Beckwith, Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted In The Air 5
       It’s only when we are gripped be the severity of abortion that we will be willing to stand up for the most vulnerable members of our society. 60,236,165 lost to abortion since 1973, when will it be enough? I would challenge you to be faced with the reality of abortion, these images (graphic) are the evidence of unseen genocide in our country. Watch Abortion Procedures by Live Action (not graphic but descriptive.) Many Germans did not believe the Holocaust was real until they were faced with the images. No one wants to look into the face of evil but it necessary for it’s defeat. Watch 180 movie to challenge your silence. 
      “Open the casket we must. Until we do, Americans will continue tolerating an injustice they never have to look at.” Scott Klusendorf6
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
  • RESPONSES:
    • What kind of pain is worse than death?
    • Is there any kind of suffering that can’t be overcome?
    • Who should be given the choice of how to live their life of suffering?
    • Is the quality of life ethic more important the sanctity of life ethic?
    • What standard of living needs to be met for an unborn child to qualify for life?
    • Would you apply this same logic to a two-year-old child?

  • RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“We shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies.”
“The only course of action truly consistent with moral relativism is complete silence. If you view all morality as relative and you’re consistent, you can’t ever make a moral recommendation. This puts the relativists in an untenable position, caught coming and going. If they speak, they surrender their relativism. If they do not speak, they surrender the humanity.” Greg Koukl1
The statement, “We shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies,” completely depends on what we are forbidding women to do with their bodies. According to this logic, American laws forbidding a woman from killing, stealing, or trespassing would be immoral. We tell people what to do with their bodies every day. The foundation of this logic is personal freedom, “We shouldn’t force our morality on others.” But this worldview is self-defeating. Consider the following examples: 

  • Example 1
    • Well, I don’t believe in forcing morality on others.
      • Isn’t that what you are doing to me? By telling me not to force my morality on others, you are forcing your morality on me. 
    • We shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies.
      • Why not?
  • Example 2
    • You shouldn’t push your morality on me.
      • Are you telling me that I am wrong?
    • You are.
      • Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me. Why are you forcing your morality on me?
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
  • RESPONSES:
    • Do you believe in anarchy? If no, you are limiting what a woman can do with her body. 
    • What specific things would you tell a woman she can’t do with her body?
    • Do you oppose laws against murder, stealing, trespassing, or DUI?

  • RESOURCES:
    • Book: Relativism by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl
Footnotes:
  • 1. Beckwith, Francis J., and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. (p. 68) Baker Books, 1998
“If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.”
“Saying, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one,” to those opposed to abortion is similar to telling abolitionists not to own slaves if they don’t like slavery.” -Francis Beckwith1
“You can dislike it, but you have to tolerate it.”
       There are many things that we don’t enjoy: Our teen’s choice in music, our neighbor’s porch light, or the color of our car. These are things that we can dislike and tolerate. But, as Pro-lifers, we believe that abortion is the intentional killing of a innocent human person. It’s not enough to refrain from killing our own children, we need to protect our neighbors from killing their children. Why? Because we believe that murder is unacceptable and tragic. There are immoral decisions that you can tolerate, but murder is not one of them. This brings us back to our foundational question, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn is truly an innocent human person, abortion can not be tolerated.

“Believe what you want, just don’t believe it’s true.”
“The freedom of our day is the freedom to devote ourselves to any values we please, on the mere condition that we do not believe them to be true.”2

        Saying, “If you don’t like abortion, just don’t have one,” is in essence saying to the Pro-life advocate, “If you don’t like killing unborn innocent persons, then just don’t kill your child.” You would never say these same words to a parent of a two-year-old. “If you don’t like killing toddlers, just don’t kill your toddler.” This is asking people to believe what you believe- “The fetus is not an innocent human person.” Instead of asking people to believe what you believe, ask yourself, “How do I know that the fetus is not a human person?” We should believe what is true, not what is convenient.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
  • RESPONSES:
    • Would you say, “Don’t own slaves if you don’t like slavery,” to an abolitionist?
    • Why do you believe all morality is personal? What if I decide to steal from you? If that is my personal morality, who are you to say that I am wrong?
    • What is the unborn? Are they persons?

  • RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
  • 1. Beckwith, Francis J., and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Baker Books, 1998
  • 2. Harvard Graduate, cited in Finding God at Harvard, Kelly Monroe, p. 17.

SPEAKING IN LOVE

F O U N D A T I O N  # 4 :  W i t h o u t   l o v e   w h a t   a r e   w e?
“How do I love someone who is unlovable?”
“It is imperative that Pro-life conviction not override Pro-life compassion because it is not so much about simply winning a debate as it is about changing hearts.” Stephanie Gray1
         Paul in his letter to the Corinthians said, “ If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:2-3)
         As the saying goes, “They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” It doesn’t matter if you are doing the right thing, if you are doing it for the wrong reasons. We absolutely need to love all people, especially the unlovable. If people are ever going to receive what you say, they will need to know you care about them.
        But how do we change our hearts? How do we learn to love the unlovable? Love is more than a feeling. Love is a choice to think differently, feel differently, and act differently. Love is always a choice. We will change the way we feel and act when we change the way we think about people. Our motivation will greatly affect our execution.
       Have you ever considered that the person you are speaking with might have had an abortion, or maybe someone they love has had an abortion? What they are vigorously defending is not a walled off ideology but caged pain and guilt. We need to be sensitive to all people, even the most insensitive people. Those who protest the loudest could be those who hurt the most. If you have had an abortion, remember, there is hope for your pain. (See, “You bring up the painful memory of my own abortion,” and “I don’t regret my abortion.”)
       “At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and at 2008 abortion rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45. 2
       “More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and 25% attend religious services at least once a month.” Guttmacher Institute 3
       Every person that I engage in life, I have to remind myself that they might have had an abortion, or there might be someone listening to me who has. Do I communicate compassion for these women?  Recognizing the agony of their choice doesn’t forfeit my position for life. We should approach every person with deep conviction, yet even deeper compassion. Love sets the stage for the presentation of truth. 
       Remember that those you are talking to are not your enemy, they are captives. (They Are Not Your Enemy- SLC)  2 Timothy 2:24-26 (our Speak Life Collective mission verses) says, “They have been held captive by him (satan) to do whatever he wants.” When we view those who support abortion as those who need to be rescued, not attacked, we find our hearts change. They are much like child soldiers who have been coerced into fighting an unjust war. We need to be a part of their deliverance, not their defeat. How do you love the unlovable? You change the way you think about them, you pray for them, and you reach out to them. Let love cover all that you are!
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What kind of pain is worse than death?
  • Is there any kind of suffering that can’t be overcome?
  • Who should be given the choice of how to live their life of suffering?
  • Is the quality of life ethic more important the sanctity of life ethic?
  • What standard of living needs to be met for an unborn child to qualify for life?
  • Would you apply this same logic to a two-year-old child?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“I don’t want to push my loved one away.”
“Love is about wanting the other’s good, not about wanting the other to feel good.” Stephanie Gray1
Balance truth with love. 
       There is an old saying, “Well, the truth hurts.” We cannot avoid hurting people to some extent when speaking truth. But we can avoid being cruel with our delivery of the truth. I have had a lot of dental work done over the years, so I am very thankful for the gift of local anesthesia. When the dentist had to perform a painful procedure for the benefit of my health, it was not necessary for him to first numb my mouth, but it was compassionate. It’s hard enough to go to the dentist, but I can guarantee you that dental visits would drastically drop without local anesthesia. In the same way, people will avoid hearing necessary truth without first feeling loved. Without love, people will only focus on the pain, not the truth. A woman from church shared this quote with me from a pastor she heard on the radio, “Truth without love is cruelty, and love without truth is compromise, but love with truth is Christ-like.” How do we balance truth with love? Just like mixing epoxy when you don’t have measuring cup, use 100% of both bottles. Truth and love are only balanced when we don’t hold back either virtue.

This is not about who cares more about women. 
        In his article You Can Hate Abortion and Love Women, Scott Klusendorf suggest relaying it this way, “I hope you don’t believe Pro-lifers hate women, but I think you are right about one thing: If the unborn are not members of the human family, I am indeed unfairly imposing my views on women. However, if each and every human being has an equal right to life, and the unborn is one of us, can you see things my way? That is, if you shared my position that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being, wouldn’t you do everything you could to stop it? Wouldn’t you want unborn humans protected by law just like everyone else? Of course, I realize you don’t share my position, so my point here is really quite modest: The issue that separates us is not that I hate women and you love them. What separates us is that I believe the unborn are members of the human family and you don’t. That’s the issue I hope we can talk about.” 2

You are not responsible for results, you are responsible for the truth in love.
        If a doctor gets back terminal lab results for one of his patients, what is his duty? His duty is to tell the truth and to provide the best care at his disposal to heal his patient. We have a duty to tell the truth to hurting men and women who have been deceived into thinking the death of their child improves their life. We are obligated to provide the best care at our disposal to bring healing to their hurting hearts. But if we have done what we can, then we should stop worrying about what we can’t do. You are responsible for your actions, not their reaction.

What is most important to you?
        You have heard it said, the family comes first. But when life and death are on the line, doing the right thing comes first. If the choice is between offending your family member or saving a life, what is more important? Do you care more about your convenience than their existence? Don’t be stingy with truth or love. Keep truth and love, 100%!
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Can we have a civil conversation about the issue of life?
  • I love you and want to have a healthy relationship, but I cannot risk saying nothing. Would you allow me to ask you some questions?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“I don’t regret my abortion.”
“It might be that the person is emotionally resisting the force of the logical argument because he is near changing his mind—and doesn’t want to. So he needs something different than another dose of arguments.” Stephanie Gray 1
(See, “You bring up the painful memory of my own abortion.”)

We would highly suggest the article by Abort73, Positive Abortion Stories to answer this question.

Regret doesn’t equal guilt. 
           Just because we don’t regret what we have done does not mean that it is justified. “Feelings based morality” is a horrible standard for right and wrong. Some people are more prone to feel and express emotion than others. What you feel is not what is real. Feelings are often liars, so we always need to make sure our feelings align with the truth. Guilt is a reality, regret is a feeling. You may never regret your abortion, but you need to acknowledge your guilt. It is only by admitting our wrong that we are able to heal and move forward. 

Lack of regret may be a sign of ignorance.    
          Many post-abortive woman experience profound regret following the abortion, but not all do. Some women experience abortion without ever seeing the horrors of their choice. Some walk away relatively unscathed physically or are shielded from witnessing the consequence of their decision. As Pro-life advocates, we should not force the reality of abortion on these woman. But if you are a woman who has never taken the time to face the reality of your choice, you should prayerfully consider it. Many who identified themselves as Pro-choice changed their mind by simply watching Abortion Procedures by Live Action. See their reactions here.
Footnotes:
  • 1. Gray, Stephanie. Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. (p. 68) Life Cycle Books., 2016
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What kind of pain is worse than death?
  • Is there any kind of suffering that can’t be overcome?
  • Who should be given the choice of how to live their life of suffering?
  • Is the quality of life ethic more important the sanctity of life ethic?
  • What standard of living needs to be met for an unborn child to qualify for life?
  • Would you apply this same logic to a two-year-old child?

RESOURCES:
“I wish I had been aborted.”
This is time to shelf the debate and love the person in front of you. Ask them meaningful questions of why they feel that way. They don’t need an answer, they need an advocate. Have them share their life story with you. I have heard people who I love communicate these tragic words. When I asked them to open up to me about their lives, they were open to my presentation of why they were believing lies. Being Pro-life means bringing hope for life. Share the hope that you have been given. Don’t be their savior, point them to the Savior!
RESOURCES:
RESPONSES:
  • Why do you feel that way?
  • Tell me about your life story.
  • How would the world be better without you in it?
  • How would your family’s or friend’s lives improve without you?
  • Does your family feel the same way?
  • Have you heard how God feels about you?
“I am Pro-choice because Pro-lifers are mean fanatics that scream at scared women.”
“As a rule, women do not make decisions about pregnancy prevention or treatment on the basis of statistical evaluations and medical advice but rather on the basis of personal attitudes and necessities.” -Warren Hern1
       In the movie, Unplanned, Abby Johnson is walking into her local Planned Parenthood to volunteer for the first time while “Pro-lifers” are hurling insults at hurting women through the fence. In the scene, the Planned Parenthood clinic workers seem to show empathy for these women by escorting the women inside the clinic. This contrast of hate and empathy is not only seen but felt. Couldn’t you see how this would drive women into the arms of the welcoming clinic worker? Hurling insults does not persuaded those in crises to change their course. Only speaking the truth in love will make a real change.

Bad character does not negate truth. Good character relates truth. 
        Being armed with the truth is just like being armed with any other weapon, it’s damage is dependent on who is handling it. Much of what “fanatical/mean” Pro-lifers say, is true. They blatantly expose the horrors of the abortion industry and call abortion what it is, murder. The problem is not the truth. How and why we communicate the truth is just as important as communicating the truth itself. Screaming at women, violently protesting, being crude, or acting out in violence does not convince anyone. But on the other hand, just because someone says something true in the wrong way doesn’t mean what they said was incorrect. Their behavior is wrong, but the truth may not be. Truth is always dangerous, but it’s damage depends on how we use it.

Outnumber the screams.
          Before Abby Johnson was a Pro-life advocate she was the director of Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. Johnson, speaking of the “mean fanatics” in her book, Unplanned, said, “My immediate thought was that if they cared about these woman, they wouldn’t look so frightening with a Grim Reaper and a huge photo of an aborted fetus on display...We are there to love and befriend and pray for the clients who enter abortion clinics and the workers who staff them. Just as I was prayed for, loved, and befriended.” 

       It was the founders of 40 days for Life that showed her unconditional love in those years as a director. Their consistent prayerful witness has had a lasting impact on Abby. Earlier this year, 40 days for Life just had it’s one millionth volunteer sign up to peacefully pray outside abortion clinics! 40 Days for Life “is a peaceful and educational presence. Those who are called to stand witness during this 24-hour-a-day presence send a powerful message to the community about the tragic reality of abortion. It also serves as a call to repentance for those who work at the abortion center and those who patronize the facility.” 2

       There is no screaming at women, no chanting, no condemnation, and no violence. 40 Days for Life spends their time prayerfully interceding. How many people notice the peaceful prayer vigil?  These numbers should draw our attention away from the obnoxious few. The Pro-life movement is a prayer movement. Do not let a minority define the wonderful Pro-life community!

Consider the Woman
        We have talked to women who have experienced horrible things shouted at them by fellow Christians as they walked into abortion clinics. The things said to them did nothing but drive them into the arms of Planned Parenthood. Likewise, we have heard testimony of women who walked into Pregnancy Care Centers and chose life because of the deep care they were shown.  Empathy goes a long way in making an impact. Putting ourselves in their shoes can help us reach out in a more productive manner. These women need our unconditional love and support.

Consider the Clinic Workers
         God can do an amazing work in the clinic worker’s heart. He changed the heart of Saul, the persecutor. 196 abortion workers have quit beause of the work of 40 Days for Life. And Then There Were None (founded by Abby Johnson) reported 419 abortion workers had quit as of 2018. How do we reach out to these clinic workers? And Then There Were None gives this advice, “Remember, abortion workers are human beings, with friends and families who love them, bills to pay and children to feed. Treat them like you would any other friend of yours. Smile and say ‘good morning’ when they come to work, and offer them an ATTWN flier. If abortions are being performed that day, you can say something like ‘I know procedure days are very difficult for the women you see, but I know it’s hard on you, too.’ Tell them you care about them and if they ever need anything, to come talk to you. Unlike women coming in for abortions, you have time to develop a relationship with the workers inside the clinics. Take time to get to know them and to try to find out why they are working there.”
        Let’s show the world that we are not only a friendly movement but that we want to be your friend in your crisis. What can we do to change perspectives about the Pro-life movement?
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What did they say to you?
  • Where have you seen these people?
  • What Pro-lifers have you had contact with?
  • What would it take to change your mind about the Pro-life movement?
  • If someone is mean, does that mean they are wrong?
  • How could I improve in showing love?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
  • 1. Warren Hern, Abortion Practice (Boulder, CO: Alpenglo Graphics, 1990), 10, 39.
  • 2. “Helping to End the Injustice of Abortion”. https://www.40daysforlife.com/about-overview.aspx.
“I am pregnant and scared.”
“As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the ‘quality of life’ ethic.” -Ronald Reagan 1
Life is always a gift.
          Life is the greatest miracle and gift given to us by the Creator. If you are a woman who has recently discovered your are pregnant and you are terrified, remember, this new life is a gift no matter the circumstances of the conception. You may be thinking, “But this a gift that I never wanted.” A gift’s “desirability” does not determine it’s objective value. Even though you do not yet appreciate the incredible gift you have been given, it’s the most precious gift you have ever received. You may not be ready to be a parent right now, but we would love to connect with you to get you the support you need right now. Reach out to us or find a Pregnancy Care Center closest to you. If you are considering abortion, please visit Care-net.org


Listen to their story. 
       If you know someone who has recently revealed to you that they are “pregnant and scared,” consider it a great honor that they trusted you with their story. Their story should not be neglected or dismissed. Listening communicates love more than words. Ask questions, sincere questions. Listen, and then listen some more. Also consider what you are communicating with your body language, tone or reactions. Have you congratulated her? We shouldn’t deny a new mother celebrating her child because we believe their age, the nature of conception, or their socioeconomic status negates celebration. Life is always a gift no matter the ability of the recipient's ability to care for the gift! We can provide an experience of celebration that they themselves would have never considered. Learn to appropriately congratulate every new mother no matter their situation. Every life should be celebrated. 


Show support. 
We often say at Speak Life Collective, “You can’t do everything, but you can do something.” You may not be able to solve all her problems, but which ones can you be a part of solving? Consider, how much am I able to give? Can I house her in my house for a season? Could I take her to appointments? Can I babysit her other kids? Can I be a friend she calls when she needs someone to talk to? It is easy to give her the number of the local Pregnancy Care Center and think you have done all you can. The Pro-life movement, more than anything, is a community! Just like any community, the best communities are the ones where everyone contributes what they can to support one another. Care-net.org is a great resource to find your local Pregnancy Care Center, but they are also a great resource to become trained to support your community’s needs.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • You might not be ready to be a parent, but have you considered adoption?
  • Would you like for me to go with you to your appointments?
  • What scares you the most about being pregnant?
  • Would you be open to me connecting you to a center that is designed to help women that are in crisis pregnancies?
  • Have you been pregnant before?
  • How far along are you? Have you gone in for your first appointment?
  • As much as it doesn’t feel like it, that is great news! Life is always a gift. I am going to do everything I can to support you. Is there anything specific you really need right now?

RESOURCES:
“You bring up the painful memory of my own abortion.”
“If you’ve had an abortion, you don’t need an excuse. You need an exchange—his righteousness for your sinfulness.” Scott Klusendorf 1
(See, “I don’t regret my abortion.”)

Post-abortive women are your loved ones. 
          I (Ryan) will never forget when I first had my eyes opened to abortion. I was a 14-year-old musician who felt a deep need to express my anger in response through lyrics. What surprised me the most, when sharing a song about my feelings over abortion, was that a loved said, “Ryan, you know that song is very true, but it’s also very hurtful. Did you know that I had abortion?” Suddenly, I realized that my sensitivity to the unseen genocide was also coming across as insensivity to the unseen surviviors, post-abortive mothers. 
24% of women will have an abortion by age 45. “Many abortion patients reported a religious affiliation—24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion.” 2
What has helped temper my speech is to remember that there is a 1 in 4 chance that the woman that I am talking to has had an abortion. Abortive mothers were always “those people,” women I didn’t know personally. I didn’t realize, they are us. Post-abortive mothers (and fathers) are neighbors, mothers, sisters, aunts, Christians, Catholics, and those living everyday life with us. They hide their story to protect themselves from the outside world and the battle within. There is a deep wound in the heart of the post-abortive man or woman that should not be ignored. 
        Let their pain give us pause before we speak life, but don’t let it silence you. Instead, come along side and help them find hope for their hurt. If we are speaking to a post-war survivors, PTSD hides behind every veiled face. We must be gentle as we navigate this topic. 2 Timothy 2:24 says, “And a servant of the Lord must...be gentle to all.” Gentleness requires learning to harness power for a more ideal outcome. 

Post-Abortive Women: Stop making excuses, your healing depends on it. 
        When I first read Scott Klusendorf’s words to post-abortive women, it floored me because of his candidness and his seeming insensitivity. He says, “Stop making excuses. If you are a woman who conceded to have an elective abortion, stop blaming your boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, or husband. If you are that boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, or husband, stop blaming the woman you impregnated. Step up and admit that you took a human life and that you did so without justification. You feel guilty because you are guilty.”
       This is an example where a harsh rebuke is actually loving nudge into healing, because as long as we deny there is a problem, the problem will always exist. It’s only when we accept our sin and its consequences that we can get healing. I would encourage you to read Scott’s book and his response in its entirety. He does a masterful job at showing that what we need, more than anything, is a Savior to heal us from our deepest self-inflicted wounds. We also encourage you to browse the resources we have listed to recieve healing from your own abortion. Whether you are excusing it, or burying it, you have to face the pain, or it will silently ruin you. Please reach out to us and we would love to connect with you and connect you to those who can help you.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • I am so sorry to hear that my words are painful for you to hear. What did I say that hurt you the most?
  • Have you ever talked to someone about your experience?
  • Have you recieved counseling for your abortion?
  • It’s okay to feel pain when you think about your abortion, that is normal. What has your journey with grieving your abortion been like?
  • I never knew that, I am so sorry for any insensitivity on my part. If you had an opportunity to help another woman from making the same choice you have, would you?
  • Can you help me navigate the best way to speak life and be sensitive to post-abortive men and women?
  • Thank you for sharing with me such an intimate and painful part of your life. Would you be open to talking more about it?
  • Can I share with you some resources to help bring healing to your hurting heart?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:

CULTURE AND SOCIETY

F O U N D A T I O N  # 5 :  W h a t    i s   a   c i v i l   s o c i e t y ?
“You are a man, so you have no say about abortion.”
This objection is about credibility, not objectivity. 
       When the issue of gender is brought into the abortion debate, the objection is not truth, but credibility. If a 6th grade boy from Kentucky gives an oral report on, “The Immoral Nature of Human Trafficking in Africa,” is his statement invalid because he lives in Kentucky? Objective statements are true or false independent of their communicator. The fetus in the womb is either an innocent human person or they are not. This truth cannot change from person to person. The belief can change from one individual to the next, but the truth does not change. Likewise, intentional killing of innocent human persons is always wrong no matter a person’s experience.
        What would be the difference if a 12 year old boy rescued from Human Trafficking in Africa gave the same presentation to the class in Kentucky? The truth would be more compelling because of his experience, but the truth would still be independent of his experience. Anyone could give that same presentation and it would still be true, but who communicates it may change if anyone cares.
        This is why we need those who have experience with pregnancy, high-risk pregnancy, abortion, single parenting, foster care, and disabilities to speak life, it is compelling! But this does not mean those without experience need to be silent. If it wasn’t for the voice of abolitionists who had no experience of being enslaved, there would have been no change. Chained men depended on free men who experientially knew nothing of their shackles. Wouldn’t you rather people stood up for what’s objectively right, rather than what they subjectively want? 

Men gave us abortion in the United States.
       Consider Roe vs. Wade, that it was 7 men in the United States Supreme Court that ruled that a woman had a fundamental and constitutionally protected right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which extended to decisions related to abortion. Is their opinion not valid because they are men? The objection is not really men speaking about life, the objection is what men say about life.

Can barren woman speak about “reproductive rights?”
       If the objection is that men cannot get pregnant so they cannot speak about “reproductive rights,” does this mean that post-menopausal women, infertal women, or lesbians have no right to speak about abortion? 
        Women have a more compelling voice in the abortion debate because they are the ones that have the greater stake in its outcome. We should give special attention to women who have special experience with pregnancy, but it doesn’t mean that men have nothing of value to say either. Let’s not be so close minded that we cannot hear from someone based on their gender.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Do you think a father should have a choice if his spouse wants to have an abortion?
  • Why shouldn’t men be heard? Do you have any personal reason for that?
  • Did you know it was men that legalized abortion in America?
  • Do you know that it was men that influenced the Women’s Rights Movement to support abortion? See How the Sexual Revolution Hijacked Feminism
  • Are you willing to hear men on any issue?
  • Is there any issue where you believe only men are allowed to speak up for?
  • Should a man stop a woman from killing her toddler? What’s the difference between a man objecting to a mother killing her unborn child?

RESOURCES:
“We should focus on the children that are already are alive.”
or “You don’t care about the life of the baby after it’s born.”
“It’s better to suffer evil than to inflict it.” Peter Kreeft, The Unaborted Socrates1
The Unborn is Already Alive
       Once again, we are presented with the foundational question, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn is a living, separate, human person, then defending the unborn is “focusing on the kids who are already alive.” We are not saying a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose when to be a mother. We are saying she doesn’t have a right to kill her living children to stop from being a mother. There are many other options for a mother who is not ready to be a mother or can’t properly take care of her children: adoption, family support, government programs, or training. The support may not always be ideal, but it will always be better than choosing abortion. If the unborn is a living human person then we have a duty as a just society to protect their life. 

Children are not an inconvenience.
      “Children are not a distraction from more important work; They are the most important work.” Dr. John Trainer2
       Many pro-choice advocates are understandably frustrated with the unmet needs of hurting children in broken communities. Their perspective is that affluent communities want to force their morality on pregnant mothers to keep their babies but do nothing to help care for babies, or mothers. They believe that those who want to force women to have babies are trapping them in poverty. We cannot deny that children are a huge financial, spiritual, emotional, and physical responsibility, but with responsibility comes possibility! Children are the most valuable investment that you can invest your life into!
       We as a society have stripped away the true meaning of being a parent: self-sacrifice. We no longer honor men and women who choose to sacrifice their comfort for the sake of their children. With children you may be tempted to believe, “I will have no life,” but without children there is no life. Life is not over when we have kids; it's more purposeful, selfless, and character-building – things we ought to be chasing after anyway. (See Myth 6: “I will have no life as a parent.” | By Kori Peterson)

Caring for one person doesn’t mean you don’t care about people. 
       If you were a firefighter who saved a 3 year-old child from a burning building, I wouldn’t accuse you of not caring about the 8 year-old on the floor below. Saving the life of one person does not mean that you don’t care about the ones you can’t save. It proves you’re human, limited in resources, but limitless in compassion. When a humanitarian does all they can and yet there is still a need, there is a need for another human to meet that need.

Pro-life is Pro-all-life.
        I believe a movement can be judged by its leadership. The most notable leaders in the Pro-life movement have proven, by their lives, that they care about more than just the unborn. They are Pro-family, Pro-women, and Pro-child. They have opened their homes to children who need moms and dads and women who need shelter. The states with most Pro-life legislation are the most Pro-family states in the nation. Not every Pro-life advocate is praticing what they preach. We all need to grow in our outreach to our communities, family and friends. Some people like to be right without doing the right thing. They like to have the right answer without becoming the answer to someone’s prayers.
       But to say that Pro-life advocates don’t care about living children is disparaging language. I have seen time and time again, Pro-life advocates stand in the gap and say, “I will care for your child.” When Pro-choice advocates quip, “Whose going to take care of all these children?” It is the Pro-life community that says, “I will.”
       As Pro-lifers, we can’t do everything, but we can all do something. Once we do something then we learn to do more. We are moving towards the goal of practically proving, with our lives, that we are Pro-all-life. We can’t do it, all but what can you do?
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What would you like to see the Pro-life movement doing more? Have you researched if there is that within our communities?
  • Do you have same expectations for those who are Pro-choice?
  • What examples of social reform work well?
  • This seems very personal to you, what has been your experience with childhood suffering?
  • Do you feel you are meeting the call to serve pregnant mothers in need?

RESOURCES:
FOOTNOTES:
“There are already too many kids in the foster system, do you want to add more?”
Find common ground.
       Finding common ground is foundational to a healthy conversation. Admitting that there is a great need for better foster care in our country is a good starting point. We absolutely need more foster families, less bureaucracy, sensible accountability, and rational application process. Recognizing this great need is an important tool to move the conversation forward. It shows that we are not ignoring the problem, we just don’t want to add pain to the problem. 


The state workers needs our love, foster children need our love.
         More than anything we need more love and awareness for the foster system in America. Throughout the United States, more than 400,000 children and youth in foster care need families.

        Wait No More is a ministry dedicated to recruiting foster families, supporting Social Workers, and finding forever homes for children waiting for adoption. They illustrate the point well, “Throughout the United States, there are over 400,000* children and youth in foster care of which more than 100,000* legally available for adoption. Their only permanent parent is the state in which they live. For many of these children and youth, the thought of being welcomed into a family seems like a dream. But with more than 300,000 churches throughout the US, those dreams can become a reality for many children.”1

         There would be even more children in the foster care system if it wasn’t for the Pro-life community, but there is more we can do. If you can’t become a foster parent, consider supporting a foster family or a Social Worker. They are on the front lines of this battle. They need support to raise their weary hands. 


Newborn adoption is different than foster care.
         Rachel Crawford in her article, The Foster Care Fallacy points out, “This problem is one of the most straightforward concerns a pro-life advocate can respond to because it is simply based on a misunderstanding of how newborn adoption works. Children who are in foster care are usually waiting to be returned to their biological parents, placed with another family member, or, in some cases, to be permanently adopted from their foster home.”2

        A pregnant woman who works with an adoption agency is never placing her child in the foster care system. Newborn adoption does not place children within the state’s care, it places them in a loving home. We need to make sure in our conversations with those presenting this argument (overrun foster care), that we express that “newborn-to-adoptive parents” situations do not add to the foster care system.

       “There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples.” -Adoption Network3

      Rachel continues to say, “Unlike a philosophical disagreement, this is not an issue that requires a complicated debate because it is a simple factual mistake.”
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Why do you think abortion would be better than adoption?
  • What can the Pro-life community do better to support the foster care system?
  • What needs to be fixed in the foster care system?
  • Do you know someone in the foster care system? Or have you known someone in the foster care system?
  • Do you know the difference between newborn adoption and foster care?

RESOURCES:
FOOTNOTES:
“If abortion is outlawed, women will be forced into back alleys to have unsafe abortions.”
If abortion is murder, should we make it safe to murder?
       One again we find ourselves answering the question, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn is an innocent human person, then the intentional killing of the unborn via abortion is murder. Should we make murder safer?
        As Abort73.com points out, “It is nonsensical to argue that society must keep it safe and legal for one human being to kill another human being—especially when the one being killed is both innocent and defenseless.”1
        We don’t desire that any woman with a crisis pregnancy needlessly dies. No one should needlessly die because of their poor choices. More importantly, innocent defenseless children should not die at the hands of their parents’ poor choices. These women do not deserve to die, but neither do their children. Women in crisis pregnancies do not choose abortion because it is a safe choice, they choose it because they feel they have no other choice. We must be the voice that presents a worthy choice. 

There is no such thing as a safe abortion. 
        There is no such thing as a safe abortion because abortion always kills someone. The woman may walk out of the clinic unharmed that time, but what is not seen is the violent act behind closed doors. A “successful” abortion results in a dead baby. There is nothing safe about abortion for the baby.
       In addition to the death of a human life, many women are still dying from abortions or experience post-abortive complications for the rest of their lives. Legal abortions are not without their risk. The abortion industry is a for-profit industry, and the factual dangers of abortion are often not fully disclosed to the patients obtaining abortions. Proponents who believe delegalizing abortion will cause “back alley” abortion clinics to open fail to recognize that there is a real danger in legal abortion clinics already. The unnatural removal of a child from a mother’s womb is not a procedure that is meant to be performed on a woman because, at its essence, it is not safe. 

Are women forced to have elective abortions?
       Many women are truly coerced, and sometimes even forced, into having legal abortions by others. Undercover videos have shown rapists, pimps, and family members being protected by abortion workers. The current law and culture perpetuates abuse of women and young girls in these situations.  But, these situations are not to be confused with the personal choice a woman makes to receive an abortion of her own volition. A woman wanting an abortion does not mean that she can’t stop herself from getting an abortion. Desires are not destiny, they’re appetites that need to be accountable to what is right. We need to ask the questions, “What is right?,” instead of the question that we always ask, “What do I want?”
       Yes, no woman wants to endure an abortion procedure, but they are decieved to desire the “freedom” that abortion promises. They don’t want the procedure, they don’t want to kill their “potential” child, but they want something else, something more, otherwise they wouldn’t get the abortion.
       There is always a choice no matter what the laws are, but is it the moral one? 

Will women die from abortion if it’s illegal?
          Abort73.com did a thorough job of answering this question. We are not living in the 1950’s, we have antibiotics. We have technology that makes medical treatment safer. To say that those who perform illegal abortion will not have access to medical knowledge and technology of the last 70 years is an incomplete perspective. (see “Maternal mortality rates will rise without free access to abortion.”)
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • What is the unborn?
  • Is intentionally killing unborn human persons, murder?
  • What is the difference between illegal and legal abortions?
  • Would there be any other crimes you would want to make safer for the perpetrator?
  • Why do women die from abortion?
  • Is our convenience more important than what is right?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“Maternal mortality rates will rise without free access to abortion.”
“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Alan F. Guttmacher,1
Will abortion save the mother’s life? 
        We can start by asking the question, “Why would abortion surpress the maternal mortality rates?” The Pro-choice advocate’s answer may be, “Pregnancy can be life threatening, and less pregnancies equals less maternal deaths.” But isn’t this is a better argument for contraception, rather than abortion? A woman seeking to have an abortion is already pregnant, abortion doesn’t remove risk. When a mother chooses to have an abortion she still has a great risk to her life both from the pregnancy and the abortion. Medical risk should always be evaluated and given a proper response. But is abortion the best response?
         The risk that the mother might die is very different than a diagnosis of her actually dying. See our response, “What if the life of the mother is in danger?” for our position on the “life of the mother” argument.
        Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control to reduce risk. If the best form of prevention of maternal risk is to not get pregnant, then shouldn’t that be the foundation to this conversation? What medical advances can we make to reduce the maternal mortality rate? How can we reduce poverty that increases this risk? How can we encourage fidelity and sexual responsibility? 

Does unforeseeable maternal risk supersede a certain life-ending procedure (abortion)? 
         Abort73.com article clearly articulates this important question. “In the United States, the overall pregnancy-related mortality rate is .0151% (15.1 deaths per 100,000 live births), this according to data published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 2012. In other words, for every pregnancy-related death, there are 6,622 live births. Pregnancy, by its very nature, carries the risk of death. It is generally an infinitesimally small risk, but a risk nonetheless. Is a .0151% risk to the life of the mother severe enough to morally justify abortion?”2
         We answered this question in the section, Justified Pro-choice Answers. No justification is morally adequate if the unborn is an innocent human person. The mother has a moral responsibility to nurture her child to birth to the best of her ability.

There is no data to link abortion restrictions to maternal motality rates. 
    Adam Peters, from Live Action News directs our focus to the mortality rates of Pro-life countries, “Poland, Ireland, and Malta ban most abortions, yet all three have better maternal mortality rates than the United States. Chile’s rates kept falling even after Pro-life laws were enacted. Meanwhile, Mexican states with permissive abortion rules actually have higher mortality rates than those with more restrictive ones.” 3
    American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists concluded in their journal, Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality, “This data is not available in the U.S. so one must implement different methodology to compare outcome-specific rates of abortion-related and childbirth-related mortality. Since abortion and most childbirth deliveries are done vaginally and since abortion may increase the percent of women undergoing Cesarean section in subsequent pregnancies due to preterm birth and abnormal placentation, Cesarean deliveries should be excluded when comparing the safety of childbirth and abortion. To make a valid comparison, an outcome-specific rate for maternal mortality must be used: mortality associated with vaginal childbirth. The vaginal delivery maternal mortality rate is calculated as the number of vaginal-childbirth-maternal deaths/100,000 vaginal deliveries. Using outcome-specific rates, the mortality rate for vaginal delivery is 3.6 deaths/100,000 vaginal deliveries, while the rate for abortion performed at 18 weeks or later is 7.4 deaths/100,000 abortions. Put another way, the risk of death from these abortions is more than double that for women who deliver vaginally.” 4
           We need more data to know if abortion restrictions increase the maternal mortality rate. What is clear, abortion increases this risk for woman who have abortions after 18 weeks. Maternal mortality rates should be a secondary concern to the moral imperative, “do no harm.” Because when we are concerned for all life, this is when we can make a real difference for mothers at risk.  We should advocate for what is right and safe for all. The life of the mother and the life of the fetus are equally as precious. As long as we are taking the “easy” way out, we will not push ourselves to find new ways to fight for life. Using death as a shortcut to life is counterproductive. Once we are willing to take the long way around, we realize this was a better way all along. New medical and technological advances will be made on the foundation of fetal personhood.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • How does abortion prevent maternal mortality rate from rising?
  • Do you believe it’s possible to be Pro-mother and Pro-baby?
  • Would you support life saving measures if both the mother and baby would survive?
  • Why does the mother’s potential death trump the certain death of the fetus?
  • What are the greatest factors for maternal mortality rates?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“Pro-lifers want to throw vulnerable women into prison.”
“At the very least, outlawing abortion protects a nation from the ignoble distinction of enshrining injustice in law. That in itself is worth celebrating.” Abort73.com1
       We couldn’t have written a better reply than Abort73.com article, “Punishing Illegal Abortion.” They point out that this objection is similar to when the religious leaders attempted to trap Jesus by bringing the woman caught in adultery, “The Pharisees who dragged her in didn’t really care about justice; they just wanted to make Jesus look bad—by forcing him to either forsake the law or forsake the lawbreaker. As per usual, he did neither.” 2
         “So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”  And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” John 8:7-11
        Jesus perfectly modeled for us how to handle the most challenging social justice situations. His example in John 8 is outside the box of a traditional answer to a convoluted question.
        As Pro-lifers, the option is presented to us: 1) Prosecute hurting women or 2) Let murder go unpunished. Option 3 is much more nuanced, it requires us to not excuse murder but not punish hurting women either. We need to make a statement as a nation legally that abortion is not acceptable, and then make it as difficult as possible to have abortion on demand. Next, we need to hold accountable those who are profiting by subjugating women and their children to the horrors of abortion.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Why do you think that Pro-lifers want to throw vulnerable women into prison?
  • Do you think imprisonment would curtail abortion?
  • If abortion is murder, is it morally acceptable for a nation to do nothing?
  • Have you read Pro-life bills banning all abortion?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“I believe in women’s health, so I am Pro-choice.”
or “Planned Parenthood is about women’s health.”
or “Abortion is healthcare.”
       We have all seen the propaganda: “Abortion comprises only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services” or “Abortion is healthcare.” Hollywood has really ramped up the rhetoric but what is the truth? Is abortion healthcare?

The foundation of healthcare: “Do no harm.”
        A doctor has taken the Hippocratic Oath, “Do no harm.” An abortionist job is to intentionally end the life of the unborn. An abortionist and obstetrician are not of the same profession. One is an executioner delivering a death sentence, the other is a healer fighting for the life of the vulnerable unborn to the day of delivery. By healhcare’s definition, abortion is not healthcare because healthcare professionals have sworn an oath to never purposefully inflict harm, which is exatly what is done during abortion procedure.

Planned Parenthood’s 3% myth.
    Planned Parenthood is the largest provider for abortion in the country providing over 320,000 abortions every year. A common objection is that these abortions only make up 3% of their services, but the 3% stat is a myth. First consider the numbers. 

Secondly, consider what their former President, Dr. Leana Wen stated, “First, our core mission is providing, protecting and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care. We will never back down from that fight – it’s a fundamental human right and women’s lives are at stake.”1 They openly admit they are first, and foremost, commited to abortion. 

Thirdly, they are doing more abortions with fewer patients but their numbers have consistently stayed at 3%. As Live Action stated, “Planned Parenthood’s abortions have increased 24 percent in the past 10 years (264,943/2005 vs. 328,348/2015) and patient numbers have plummeted (Planned Parenthood has lost approximately 600,000 clients since 2011, according to its own reports) — yet that three percent statistic has never fluctuated. What are the odds?”2
Local clinics are better alternative for women's health. Pro-life clinics outnumber abortion facilities 2,700 to 739.  Federally qualified healthcare centers for women outnumber Planned Parenthood 20:1. Women can find healthcare without Planned Parenthood. 

Abortion is dangerous to a woman’s health.
    Abortion poses several risks to the woman’s health such as: breast cancer, uterine damage, and future pregnancy complications. Every medical procedure carries it’s risk and abortion is not exempt. But the difference is that abortions is an elective medical procedure which risks are intentionally marginalized or hidden. Shouldn’t women be fully aware of what quality of “healthcare” they are getting when they choose abortion?
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Are you familiar with the Hippocratic Oath, “Do no harm?”
  • Are you aware of Planned Parenthood’s history?
  • Did you know that Planned Parenthood has stated that their primary goal is the defense of abortion?
  •  Are you aware of the health risks accosiated with abortion?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“Abortion is common, why is it wrong? 1 in 4 women have an abortion.”
Common does not mean correct. 
        “Everyone is doing it” has never worked as a convincing argument. Slavery at one time in our country was common but it’s acceptance did not make it moral. Democratic elections have influenced us to believe that we can change morality by the magic of a majority. Getting enough people to believe and agree with the wrong thing doesn’t suddenly make it right. History has proven that the majority can get it wrong and proclaim it as a social good. The mighty have a long history of oppressing the weak for their own convenience. 
        Present day, there is no more vulnerable community than the unborn. The common nature of abortion doesn’t make it acceptable, it makes it appalling. The numbers are not a cloak to be hidden behind, 60+ million deaths by abortion should be the tool to tear away the veil. In the case of abortion, there is no safety in numbers, this is a viral sickness that no one talks about. Instead of saying something is acceptable because, “everyone is doing it,” the fact that “everyone” is, should horrify us.
RESPONSES:
  • If more people started stealing would that make it morally acceptable? 
  • Why does it being common make it acceptable?
  • Can you recall any other socially acceptable morally wrong topics within the history of our nation, or the world?

RESOURCES:
“Every child deserves to be wanted.”
“The fact that a child is unwanted is more of a commentary on the parents than the child, and if the fetus is a person, whether it is wanted or not is irrelevant to its right to life.” Dr. Scott Rae 1
California law allows for killing unwanted children. 
      “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if...The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.” California Crimes Against the Person 1872

       In California, the only distinction needed to justify a mother killing her child is her consent. In this view, the wantedness of her child determines his legal personhood. Could we apply this same logic to a mother of a two-year old? Does her consent to murdering her child nullify the legal protections of her two-year-old? California law is morally inconsistent because it’s foundation for fetal personhood is maternal mood. Our legal protections of personhood should not be determined by another person’s feelings towards us.

Wantedness can change.
    Feelings are much like the weather, they quickly change. Feelings are swept away by circumstances. Personhood is tethered to moral reality. Should we allow temporary feelings be the greatest influence for choosing life? Some pregnant mothers are yet to understand the profound gift of motherhood. They may not awaken to this reality till they are holding their child in their arms, watch their first steps, or hear their first words. After many years of relationship with their child, many women regret they had ever considered abortion. We can be a part of helping a pregnant woman realize that their temporary tribulation is not comparable to the years of parental relationships. A gift can be unwanted and yet be unbelievably priceless! Just because a diamond lay in rubble doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, it’s simply undiscovered. Let’s help hurting women discover the unimaginable gift of life!
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Is someone who’s unwanted not a person? 
  • If someone is unwanted what is better to fix, your  feelings or their existence?
  • Can a person’s feelings change about wanting a relationship?
  • Is wantedness a feeling or reality?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“All humans having value is a religious claim.”
“If a person wants to disqualify my view against abortion because it’s based on my religious beliefs, they’ll have to also disqualify the view that killing anyone is wrong.” Alan Shlemon1
       Although legal and intrinsic personhood is grounded in the theological teaching, Imago Dei (Image of God) doesn’t mean there are no subsequent substantions for human personhood. The argument can be made for human personhood completely outside of a theological position, it’s more challenging to argue for human value.  (See, “A fetus does have the same human value.")
       As Ronald Reagan commented, “The real question today is not when human life begins, but, what is the value of human life?” 2
        The more difficult question from a secular perspective to answer is, why is human life valuable? Our response should be, “If we both agree that the fetus is a human person just like you and me, then why are we valuable?” Removing God from the picture, the debate becomes about why all killing is wrong, not just abortion.
Footnotes:
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Do you believe all human life is valuable? Why?
  • Do you believe human life should be protected?
  • Do you believe your life has objective value?
  • What is the unborn?

RESOURCES:
“Abortion is a fundamental right.”
The foundation for American rights are Imago Dei.
       Let’s start with the Declaration of Independence, this document is the foundation for all other American rights: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and every other subsequent right found in our constitution. 
       “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal. That each man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights." -Declaration of Independence1
       The founding fathers primary argument for fundamental rights was Imago Dei. Men were created equally in the image of God, therefore, they have certain “unalienable rights.” Unalienable rights: rights that cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor. No government or individual can remove these rights. What are these rights?
       “...that is, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." You cannot have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without first the protection of life! The first fundamental American right is the right to life. If we do not fight for the right to life, there will be no other rights to fight for!

Which right is primary? 
      Abort73.com illustrates this point by using the example of a pedestrian and driver .“If a car is driving down a street while someone is crossing that street, the law requires the driver of the car to slow down and stop—giving up their right to drive where they want, when they want, and at what speed they want—so that the pedestrian may cross the street in front of him. Why? Why must the driver temporarily give up his right to drive down the street just because someone else is walking across the street? Why is the right of the man on foot upheld while the right of the man in the car is denied? It is not because the pedestrian is more valuable than the driver but rather because, if the driver doesn't stop, the pedestrian will likely be killed.” 2
      When we have competing rights, the “right to choice” and “the right to life,” the right to life is always primary. Outside of the abortion debate, the law would never allow a mother to recklessly drink and drive with her child in the car. She would absolutely serve some length of jail time. We don’t reward a mother’s reckless choices while she endangers her child’s life. The right to life is the foundation of all human rights. This right should be primary. What American law has failed to do is recognize the personhood of unborn children. We have never had a time in American history where the humanity of the unborn is clearer. Our laws should reflect the revealed reality of fetal personhood. 

The Supreme Court has been wrong. 
        The Supreme Court may have declared it is a legal right, but it does not mean it is morally right. Legality is not the same as morality. Legality can change from city to city, state to state, and country to country. Morality is independent of all legislating bodies. No king, court, or nation can escape moral accountability. (Example: Nuremberg Trials)
Consider the immoral decisions that the Supreme Court has decided on that have been reversed. If they have been wrong before, could they be wrong again? The court does not determine truth, truth is to direct the court. We should be looking to make moral laws, not allow laws to make our morals. Abortion may be a current legal right, but it’s not a objective moral right.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Do you believe laws can be immoral?
  • If laws cannot be immoral, how do you create new laws?
  • Are unborn humans persons? If yes, why don’t they deserve protection as American citizens?
  • Can you explain to me why abortion is a fundamental right?
  • Isn’t the right to life primary before all other rights?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
  • 1. United States Declaration of Independence, June 7, 1776.
  • 2. Abort73.com. “Competing Rights”. https://abort73.com/abortion/competing_rights/.
“Banning abortion traps minority communities in poverty.”
Dr. Alveda C. King quoting her uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “‘The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety…’” she went on to comment, “How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.’” 1
Children are an investment. 
       We have addressed the myth that children have no value because of their financial need. Is a community trapped in poverty because of high birth rate? As OverPopulationIsaMyth.com points out, “over-population does not cause poverty.” The lack of family, infrastructure, community, and peace are the primary reasons for poverty.
They show the evidence by comparing overpopulated wealthy countries to sparsely populated poor countries. “This is made obvious by the fact that the poorest nations in the world are often among the least populated. Take the Congo, for instance, which is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a meager per capita GDP of only $300. The Congo’s population density is only 75 people per square mile, a fairly light population density. Compare this with the Netherlands, one of the wealthiest countries in the world with per capita GDP of $39,200. The Netherlands has a population density of 1,039 people per square mile.”2 
        High birth rates don’t trap minority communities in poverty. The breakdown of the family unit is the primary cause of poverty in our nation. 

The abortion industry is targeting minority communities. 
        The evidence is overwhelming that the abortion industry is targeting miniority communities as an act of “compassion.” This once again brings us back to the fundamental question, “What is the unborn?” If the abortion industry is doing nothing more than terminating a pregnancy, than who are we to stand in the way of their help? But if the abortion industry is unjustly killing hundreds of thousands of babies every year, how can this not be seen as anything but systematic killing of minorites? 
        No matter if you believe that the unborn is a human or not, we can agree that abortion ends a potential life. If the abortion industry is disproportionately killing miniorities, they are executing a eugenics agenda. This is nothing short of racial cleansing. 

Abortion kills more African-americans than any other cause of death.  
        “Population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2014-2015 show that Blacks make up 13.3% of the U.S. population, while abortion characteristic estimates from the Guttmacher Institute for 2014 indicate they make up at least 28% of abortion patients.” -Live Action3
      “Abortion is the number one killer of black lives, outnumbering the CDC’s reported top 15 leading causes of deaths among blacks in 2014—combined.” The Radiance Foundation, The Leader Killer4
Marget Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was a firm believer in the Eugenics movement. Check out the following articles that outline Planned Parenthood’s dark history:
         It is the abortion industry that is not only trapping miniority commuinities in poverty, they are attempting to elimate these communities all together.
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • How does Planned Parenthood trap someone in poverty?
  • Did you know that the birth rate is not what traps a community in poverty?
  • What do you think the leading cause of poverty is?
  • Did you know that Planned Parenthood’s founder was a leader in the Eugenics Movement?
  • Did you know that the abortion industry targets minority communities?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:
“Laws can’t stop all abortions.”
“It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that it is pretty important, also.” Martin Luther King, Jr.1

“You can’t legislate morality.”
     As MLK made clear, the law may not change a person's mind but it may restrain his actions. As Abort73.com showed with data, “The more convenient it is for a woman to have an abortion, the more likely she is to have one.”2
        It’s hard to enforce abortion laws, but that doesn’t mean those laws don’t act as a deterrent. Convenience and lack of consequence are major contributing factors for choosing abortion. Not all those who thought they wanted an abortion will end up getting an abortion. (See “If abortion is outlawed, women will be forced into back alleys to have unsafe abortions.”) 

Nation’s laws should be moral even if their citizens are not. 
      There are many who are determined to do immoral actions (steal, kill, loot, fraud) for their own convenience, or to alleviate their own personal hardships. This does not change the immoral nature of their actions. Motive may reduce their sentencing, but not their conviction. When men choose to steal to put food on their table, when women sell their bodies to make ends meet, or people do drugs to quiet the inner turmoil, all it does is defer their pain to someone else. When a woman chooses abortion, she is choosing to defer the cost of her pain to her child. The saddest part is that women don’t realize the high cost of regret they carry for the rest of their lives. The only way to find forgiveness and healing from this pain is found in Jesus Christ. 

Legality can proceed morality. 
         History tells us that it is possible for a nation’s majority moral code to change after legislation. Consider Germany’s perspective on the holocaust, or the American South’s view on slavary. These deep, ingrained prejudices did not change over night and remnants can still be found in the hearts of the few. But it took a bold minority to stand up for what is right so that others may live. Millions have laid down their lives so we can have laws to protect the vulnerable. One day, our nation will look back at the legal abortion in our country and say, “How barbaric.” Let’s be the the bold minority that said something when the majority turned a blind eye to fetal genocide.
       Laws may never change if we don’t make abortion unthinkable. That is why we need education and legislation. When abortion is made illegal in our country there will be a greater need for the Pro-life community. Hurting women will need the Pro-life community to walk alongside them and show them that there is hope. We need moral laws, but we need moral lives more!
VIDEO PLAYLIST:
Click "next" symbol or Shift+N to go to the next video in the playlist.
RESPONSES:
  • Should we always legislate morality? 
  • What types of morality should not be legislated?
  • What groups of people should not be legally protected?
  • Is it the government’s job to protect the vulnerable?

RESOURCES:
Footnotes:

LEARN

Videos
Blog
Answers

RESOURCE

Organizations
Books
Favorite Articles
Favorite Videos
Podcasts

About US

Contact
Who We Are
© COPYRIGHT 2019. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.